(Still, the question now is how we'll move on and develop into a more equitable and innovative society.)

Why would you want to though?

Look at what has happened to the developed world when it has embraced such ideas, do you think that Singapore would fare any better if it embraced progressivism with is weak social/national unity and large muslim minority?

But that's what it'll end up as. At first you will say to yourselves that only the poorest and most deserving will receive welfare. The problem is that in a democracy, what ends up happening is that political parties compete for votes, and people that would like to receive welfare money is always greater in number than the number of people who would be put off by the government offering welfare money to others. So the opposition party puts something sensible like yours on the table in order to differentiate themselves from their opponents and in time the ruling party has to match the offer or exceed the opposition proposal or concede the poor vote to the opposition. Which they can't afford to do because like I said previously, the number of people who want to receive shit from the government will always outnumber those that don't want anybody to receive anything from the government. Makes sense for political parties to court and attempt to win over the demographic of greater number, which is all that matters in an election. It is not something I can see ending well once you start off on that path. My only advice would be to not to help them via cash or overt favouritism.

Read up on neoreaction and the dark enlightenment, this is where I got these ideas from.