What some see as entitlement, others see as enlightenment

[SINGAPORE] Once you grant a privilege, it can be hard to take it away. This truism is well understood by anyone in a position of authority, from bosses announcing cost-cutting measures to governments trying (or failing) to wean industries off subsidies.

The ubiquity of this view, in turn, rests upon a certain way of viewing the world. The framework of “privileges that can be granted or removed” is often applied to any conflict between authority and those subject to it, shaping discourse on everything from free speech to working hours.

In the corporate world, it is unsurprising that leaders may take this default lens. Some may simply believe that “might makes right”, not least in a labour market where employers hold greater bargaining power.

Others may be unwilling or unable to move on from the conditions of their formative career years, choosing to “hand on misery” to new generations – as poet Philip Larkin put it – rather than improve lives.

Regardless of the reason, framing an issue in terms of privileges provides a shortcut to the moral high ground. Detractors can be dismissed as entitled; leaders themselves can proudly don the mantle of being brave enough for tough and unpopular decisions.

Yet, even if this framing may seem appropriate, it may not always be the most pragmatic or productive choice.

Goodies versus good views

Budget 2026 may bring yet more examples of this discourse, if the conventional wisdom about tough decisions being made at the start of a government term – when electoral consequences are distant – is proven right.

But both in the Budget and more broadly, it is worth drawing a distinction between specific benefits that can be rescinded, and improvements that represent an evolution of mindsets – and are thus hard to roll back.

The pandemic-era Community Development Council Vouchers, introduced to support heartland businesses and stimulate local spending, for instance, may have outlived their rationale. Singaporeans may be unhappy if these are scaled back, but few are likely to have a principled objection.

In contrast, it would be untenable to roll back policies that uphold worker welfare, such as parental leave.

In the workplace, the distinction may be harder to draw. Office pantries or game rooms, at least, are clearly perks rather than non-negotiables. But employers and employees may differ on issues such as working hours – where this is not covered by law – and medical leave without a medical certificate, for instance.

Instead of scrambling for the moral high ground, however, bosses might gain more by acknowledging the mindset shifts behind apparent “entitled” behaviour.

Given the promotion of critical thinking in schools, it is unsurprising that younger workers are willing to question authority. With mental health being taken more seriously by both the government and society, it is natural for employees to place a premium on work-life balance.

And for office workers who have seen the success of work-from-home arrangements – especially those who joined the workforce during the pandemic – hybrid flexibility is a logical choice, not an entitled demand.

Of course, bosses always have the power to put “entitled” workers in their place. But they do so at the expense of getting the best out of such workers, and risk being increasingly out of touch. After all, many rights today – from universal suffrage to worker welfare provisions – were once seen as privileges.