Initially, my research focused on working poor Malays. However, the challenges that they experienced when applying for welfare, necessitated the inclusion of social service workers in my study. By indirectly comparing the narratives of working poor Malay families against that of social service practitioners, I was able to detect some contradictions. Rather than dismiss them as ‗errors,‘ I analyzed these inconsistencies (Whyte 1982 [1960]: 176) as mirroring the divergent habitus of actors from different structural positions. I purposively sampled nine Malay and four non-Malay social service workers from both state and Malay-Muslim organizations. First, I wanted to account for the existence of national bodies and non-Malay social service workers that helped working poor Malays. Second, my initial fieldwork revealed how social service
practitioners of different ethnicities had varying views about Malay underdevelopment. Subsequently, I interviewed Malay political leaders as they are significant players in concocting welfare programmes for working poor Malays. My methodological decision was driven by an awareness of the state‘s multiracialism policy, which encouraged ‗racial‘ self-help groups and leaders to address community issues (Hill and Lian 1995: 107). Six out of twelve identified community leaders consented to being interviewed.
Although including the three groups stemmed from an initial concern to have a ‗representative‘ sample, I realized that the ―process of saturation‖ was crystallizing when my fieldwork went beyond ―traditional sample representativity‖ (Bertaux and Bertaux-Wiame 1981: 187–188). Several themes
― the pains of deprivation, the stigma of welfare, or the chastising of the
‗undeserving‘ poor — kept appearing, as one life story confirmed and complemented the previous account. Taken together, these fifty-one oral accounts illuminated the same set of cultural processes and socio-structural relations governing the reproduction of intergenerational in-work poverty, which constituted a solid body of evidence.
Language was also a critical factor affecting my fieldwork. Interviews with working poor Malay families (secondary education or below) were conducted in Malay, as they were more familiar with this language. As I tended to speak a mix of English and Malay, I faced difficulties initially to converse in Malay during the entire interview session. Subsequent interviews gave me ample practice to ask questions in a way that was most comprehensible to my working
poor informants. This initial language ‗glitch‘ made me more conscious of my ontological position as an English-speaking university student. For instance, I felt disheartened whenever I encountered young school ‗drop-outs.‘ Although it was easy to blame their parents‘ ‗uninterested attitudes,‘ conscious reflection and earlier fieldwork notes reminded me of my epistemological biases, and the need to interpret the data from my informants‘ viewpoint (habitus).
Interviews with social service practitioners and Malay leaders (university- educated or diploma holders) were conducted in English or a mix of Malay and English. Whilst it was linguistically easier to interview these two groups, I faced greater ‗resistance.‘ When I enquired about the limited extent of upward mobility amongst Singaporean Malays, some would challenge my claims, or argue that
‗most Malays have moved forward since 1965.‘ My question will be accepted and duly answered only after statistical findings were presented. Yet, there are other informants who will nod in agreement when I asked that question. Such differential responses eventually sensitized me to the varying conceptions of poverty and Malay underdevelopment in Singapore today.
My fieldwork lasted between May 2009 and January 2010. I made at least two trips to each Malay household. As these families were financially burdened, it would be insensitive to conduct the interviews during my first visit without hearing their woes. The return visit also allowed me to observe their family practices and inquire after their family histories in greater detail. With social service practitioners and Malay leaders, their proficiency in English greatly facilitated the one-off interview sessions. Each interview generally lasted between
two to three hours. To minimize distortions, I retained the Malay terms used by my informants when transcribing the interviews. They were translated into English only when I was extracting data for my thesis, although I kept some Malay slangs for added authenticity.
With regard to the organization of chapters, I have opted for a thematic approach. As this dissertation aims to elucidate the interrelationships between
‗structure‘ and ‗culture‘ in constraining the upward intergenerational mobility of working poor Malay families, it is only prudent to arrange subsequent chapters around these two concepts for consistency and clarity.
1.4 PROSPECTUS
Operating thematically, this dissertation proceeds to describe the analytical framework. A synthesis of the structuralist theory of poverty with cultural reproduction theory will be used to comprehend how ‗structure‘ and
‗culture‘ interrelate and affect in-work poverty (Chapter 2). To explicate why the working poor in Singapore are disproportionately Malays, I will chart the shifting, yet cumulative, structural impediments that limit the mobility of working poor Malays, as Singapore‘s political economy evolved (Chapter 3). After setting the historical context entrenching Malays in in-work poverty, the next two chapters explain how cultural processes and belief systems contribute to in-work poverty.
First, I will proceed to analyze the cultural mechanisms that govern the intergenerational transfer of economic, social and cultural capital within working poor Malay families (Chapter 4). Next, I will detail the divergences and
similarities in the habitus of three groups of social actors — (i) working poor Malay families (ii) social service workers (ii) Malay-Muslim political leaders — as they attempt to make sense of Malay socio-economic malaise (Chapter 5).
Finally, this dissertation concludes by recapitulating the primary findings and charting possible directions for future research (Chapter 6).
CHAPTER TWO: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter has two objectives. First, it reviews theories of poverty and cultural reproduction, to extrapolate relevant insights for understanding how
‗structure‘ and ‗culture‘ may interrelate to affect the intergenerational reproduction of in-work poverty. Second, it presents an analytical framework that synthesizes the structuralist perspective of poverty and the cultural reproduction theory. Employed in the ensuing chapters, this analytical lens will inform my analyses of the (i) structural processes and cultural mechanisms underlying intergenerational mobility within working poor Malay families (ii) intricate links between the cultural milieu and structural positions of working poor Malays, social service practitioners and Malay leaders, and their consequences for in-work poverty.
2.2 THEORIES OF POVERTY
Classified into four sub-domains — individualistic, culturalist, situational and structuralist, theories of poverty have divergent speculations about the origins of poverty, and the policies aimed at alleviating it.