Ahead of Monday’s (13 Sept) Parliamentary sitting, MP for Nee Soon GRC Carrie Tan took to Facebook on Saturday to highlight the one of the parliamentary questions she filed for the upcoming sitting, specifically asking for clarity about who is allowed to become social workers.
Noting in a Facebook post that only those with degrees are allowed to become social workers, Ms Tan wrote: “My worry is that this might create a situation where social workers, being university graduates from better resourced and better educated families, do not have the socio-economic background and exposure to have natural empathy for the low income families they work with.”
She highlighted that the question was on whether the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) would consider developing diploma-holders into social workers via short professional development course targeted specifically at people who have a significant amount of work experience in the social sector.
“I also asked for the distribution of employees across job functions in the social sector, and what the plans are to build up their capacity,” she adding, expressing her hope that these adjustments would lead to a more diverse social sector that is better equipped to serve the needs of Singaporeans.
Netizens called out Ms Tan’s “ill-informed” assumptions
Unfortunately, netizens on Ms Tan’s posts took issue with her characterisation of social workers, in particular what she wrote about social workers with university graduates coming from “better resources and better educated families” and that they would not have the “natural empathy” for low income families they work with.
Several people pointed out that not all social workers come from a privileged background, and that those who do aren’t necessarily unable to relate to the people they are trying to help and have less empathy.
One healthcare worker shared their own experiences with social workers, noting that they have never met one who is less empathetic simply because they come from a different socio-economic background than their clients.
Others also criticised Ms Tan’s suggestion that people with degrees have less “natural empathy”, with many highlighting that the training they receive to become social workers actually equip them with the adequate skills to be mindful of their client’s backgrounds.
One person wondered what led Ms Tan to have this opinion in that social workers don’t need to undergo the rigour of training and education, and that if they do, they are seen as detached and uncompassionate.
A number of commenters also rebutted Ms Tan’s ‘logic’ about social workers with degrees from more privileged backgrounds would lack empathy and be unable to relate to their clients, noting that if the same argument was applied to politicians, then it would mean that many politicians who earn more than the average citizen are ‘out of touch’.
A couple of people called out Ms Tan statement as “ill-informed” and “stereotyping”, and suggested she speak to social workers on the ground first to better understand the challenges they face.
A social worker who commented noted that Ms Tan’s perception of university graduates is an overgeneralisation. They also cautioned that reducing the entry requirements for social workers could lead to some “unintended consequences”.
One person suggested that instead of increasing the number of social workers, MPs should focus on policies that may be affected people and pushing them into the “lower strata of the economy”.
Another person noted his disappointed at Ms Tan’s statement and his disappointment that “while social workers are expected to function and adhere to a high code of ethics and standard of professionalism, it is evident that we are not trusted as professionals”.