Mrs Elizabeth Yang is happy.
The 25-year-old teacher settled down before many of her peers, marrying her husband Neil last year and having her son Elliot earlier this year.
So while her friends are starting out in the workplace, dating or enjoying late nights out, Mrs Yang has had to get used to sleepless nights and diaper duty.
She knows starting her family so young means giving up some lifestyle and career advancements. “But at the end of the day, I would rather earn less and come home to a happy household.”
For Ms Vasudha Srinivasan, 26, being single is not an issue. Her happiness lies in having choices and being able to develop herself and give back to society.
“What makes me happy is to get up in the morning and find that life is the same as when I went to sleep yesterday. That gives me hope,” said the lawyer, who gave up practising to work and volunteer in mediation.
“It’s also the little things, like when somebody does something nice for you and you’re caught off-guard by the kindness of other people,” she added.
Mrs Yang and Ms Srinivasan are just two examples of the complex spectrum of hopes and aspirations that Singaporeans have.
Perhaps this is what makes the questions “What makes Singaporeans happy?” and “What do Singaporeans value most in life?” so difficult to answer.
But two dons from the National University of Singapore (NUS) Business School have attempted to paint a picture of how Singaporeans feel in their new book, Happiness And Wellbeing: A Singaporean Experience. It analyses a survey of 1,500 Singapore citizens commissioned by the professors – Dr Siok Kuan Tambyah and Associate Professor Tan Soo Jiuan. The questions spanned a wide range of topics, from how happy Singaporeans feel and how satisfied they are with living in Singapore, to their thoughts on national identity and political rights.
What Singaporeans value
ONE section of the book zooms in on how Singaporeans rate broad societal values – coincidentally, a major talking point of the ongoing national conversation. These “value orientations” cover seven areas: family values, conservatism, entrepreneurial spirit, volunteerism, eco-orientation, status consciousness and e-orientation.
For each factor, respondents were asked how strongly they agreed with several statements, such as “one should support one’s parents in their old age”, “realising my fullest potential is more important than monetary awards” and “the Internet has become an integral part of my life”.
The results paint an interesting picture. Compared to a similar study in 2001, Singaporeans now place more value on family ties. They agreed most strongly that they should support and honour their parents and grandparents and stand by their family members through ups and downs. They also place higher value on entrepreneurial qualities like creativity and self-confidence. They are more plugged in online.
But Singaporeans are less materialistic and status-conscious. They were less in agreement with sentiments like looking out for well-known brands to reflect social status and choosing money over leisure. They are also slightly less conservative, with respondents seeming more accepting of divorce. However, they do not seem to have shifted in their views on the importance of religion and the undesirability of premarital sex.
The mean scores for volunteerism and eco-friendliness did not change. For volunteerism, respondents felt more strongly that they should raise funds for charity and were more willing to volunteer regularly. However, they felt more strongly that they could not find time to be involved in community and charity work.
The professors then used algorithms to divide Singaporeans into six clusters based on their responses to the value orientations.
There were two types of “family-oriented” Singaporeans, three types of entrepreneurial Singaporeans, and “dreamers”.
Prof Tan is cheered by the results, which speak of a society with a solid grounding in family values and one that is experiencing a rise in entrepreneurial qualities. Anecdotally, she has seen larger numbers of students at the NUS Business School going into social enterprises and non-profit oriented businesses.
Shifting values?
BUT the professors’ findings come at a time when Singapore is going through intense soul-searching about values.
Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has made values a key theme of recent speeches, including the National Day Rally, which focused on “home, heart and hope”. There has been a renewed focus on character and citizenship education in schools, to better impart values to the young.
This introspection is perhaps driven by the sense that society is in flux and what people value in life, consequently, is changing.
There is evidence of this shifting mentality in a separate part of Dr Tambyah and Prof Tan’s study. They found that most respondents would have changed the importance they assigned to nine personal values like self-respect, warm relationships and a sense of belonging since 2001.
Only those aged 25 to 34 then – now middle-aged – showed a “cohort effect” and ranked these values in roughly the same order.
This means that people are less likely to hold on to the values that they did 11 years ago – a possible effect of a rapidly-changing modern world, said Prof Tan.
Besides people being more likely to change their personal values, there could also be a larger societal shift in play. American urban expert Joel Kotkin analysed this value change in a paper published in October by Singapore’s Civil Service College.
Entitled “The Rise of Post-Familialism: Humanity’s Future?”, it described a growing worldwide trend where public attitudes towards having children and getting married are changing rapidly.
“Increasingly, family no longer serves as the central organising feature of society,” noted Professor Kotkin and his co-authors in their introduction.
This seems to be borne out by the falling total fertility rates and smaller family sizes in Singapore and other countries.
Among the complex reasons for the trend are the forces of modern capitalism, which forces people to choose between career and families, said Prof Kotkin. There has also been a widespread movement away from traditional religious or cultural values, usually rooted in kin relations, in favour of more secular values that prioritise individual success and personal fulfilment, he added.
Associate Professor Christie Scollon of the Singapore Management University (SMU) agrees that the world is moving towards post-familialism. Evolutionary theorists posit that humans have evolved to thrive in villages or tribes of about 70 people, many of these extended family, she said.
“Modern life is a bit of a paradox because we often know far more than 70 people – for example, through Facebook – and at the same time, far fewer, in that the people we do associate with don’t really know us well,” added the psychologist. This “mismatch” could explain the rise in depression rates, among other things, she said.
Values and happiness
BESIDES raising the question of whether Singaporeans’ values have changed, Dr Tambyah and Prof Tan’s book also draws links between what people value and how happy they are. For instance, the more family oriented, environmentally conscious and online- savvy the respondents were, the more likely they were to be satisfied with their personal life, or “subjective personal wellbeing”.
However, volunteerism, entrepreneurial spirit, conservativism and eco-friendliness contributed to respondents’ greater satisfaction with living in Singapore, or “subjective social wellbeing”.
But set against this is the professors’ finding that Singaporeans’ happiness and enjoyment levels have fallen since 2006.
While the drop is not large – happiness levels dipped by 3.5 percentage points and enjoyment levels slipped by 1.3 points – Dr Tambyah said this could be a sign of the Easterlin paradox at work. This is a phenomenon, seen in other developed countries as well, where happiness levels tend to stagnate after a point, even as national wealth continues to rise.
Growing awareness of this paradox also explains another big global shift in recent years. Policymakers and governments are paying more attention to happiness, wellbeing and other less tangible goals beyond economic growth, a tacit acknowledgement that money does not always buy happiness.
For instance, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and countries like Bhutan, France and Britain have introduced indices to measure citizens’ happiness.
Earlier this year, the United Nations issued a massive, 158-page World Happiness Report which called on countries to “rethink the keys to happiness”.
Indeed, there seems to be a concerted effort to find out what exactly makes people happy.
Some common themes have surfaced. The UN report summarises these factors, dividing them into external and internal. External determinants of happiness include a certain level of income, employment and work quality, social capital – including trust in others and institutions, freedom and equality – values and religion.
Internal factors include mental and physical health, family, education, gender and age.
So do the same things make Singaporeans happy?
Dr Tambyah and Prof Tan’s study has two sections on satisfaction with living in Singapore and life in general which correspond roughly with the UN’s external and internal factors, respectively.
On living in Singapore, Singaporeans were most satisfied with the safety and security, the quality of law enforcement and cleanliness. They were least satisfied with bread and butter issues like the affordability of cars, houses, health care and cost of living.
On life in general, Singaporeans were most satisfied with their relationships with their parents, children, siblings and romantic partners. They were least happy with their income and education.
On the whole, however, Singaporeans are more satisfied with life in general but less satisfied with living in Singapore than they were in 2001, found Dr Tambyah and Prof Tan. Their study also flagged certain demographic groups of unhappy Singaporeans.
Young Singaporeans aged 25 to 34 were the most unhappy, perhaps because this is when they are struggling to establish themselves in careers and start families without being able to afford cars or homes. They also enjoyed life the least and felt the least sense of achievement compared to other ages.
The middle-income group, which used to be the happiest and enjoyed life the most six years ago compared to other income groups, is now the least happy and enjoyed life the least.
The happiness conundrum
BUT Dr Tambyah and Prof Tan’s book also reveals two “happiness conundrums” in Singapore.
First: while happiness and enjoyment levels have dipped, Singaporeans’ sense of achievement has shot up by 13.7 percentage points from 2006.
Second: if Singaporeans feel that family relations make them happy, why are they moving away from forming families? Could the shift to post-familialism be the cause of growing unhappiness?
Both puzzles are perhaps linked to the paradox of modernity that Prof Scollon referred to.
Sociologist Tan Ern Ser of NUS speculates that Singaporeans have high expectations. Their achievements have merely met expectations – hence, their unhappiness.
“Another possible reason is that they feel a sense of insecurity, and that they could lose it all if they do not keep striving and competing,” he added.
There is also the issue of “moving goal posts” and the “sense of never being able to feel that they have arrived”, said Prof Tan.
The UN report notes a similar effect caused by the culture of consumption, where advertising and keeping up with the Joneses constantly creates new wants.
Prof Scollon noted that pursuing goals can be stressful, which means achievement sometimes comes at the cost of happiness.
At the same time, research shows that a little dissatisfaction and unhappiness can propel people to achieve more – especially in income and education, “areas where Singaporeans have done very well”, she said.
There were mixed views on whether there is a conflict between the post-familial trend and the importance of family to Singaporeans. Some felt a high cost of living and stressful pace of life here are keeping young Singaporeans from starting the families that they want.
Homemaker Sherrie Tan, 27, said she and her husband Shawn, 28, a business development manager at a bank, have taken the “road less travelled” in starting their family young. It means watching their expenses, saving for their one-year-old son Noah’s medical and education bills, and cutting down on eating out and vacations.
Accountant Terence Seah, 30, is single but worries that if he has kids in the future, they will be caught up in the education rat race and may not be able to afford housing and other essentials.
In comparison, his parents’ generation earned less in absolute terms but were better able to lead a comfortable life, he said.
Prof Scollon also highlighted a “prisoner’s dilemma” in the situation. Someone may choose not to work as hard because he wants to spend more time with the family, but is worried that his colleague will get ahead of him, get promoted and become more able to provide for his children.
As a result, fearing his own children will lose out, he sacrifices his own family time, she said.
Prof Tan Ern Ser had an alternative explanation. He felt that family forms may have evolved but Singaporeans remain committed to the family and having kids.
Parents may marry later and have fewer children, but they now emphasise quality parenting and are more child-centric in how they relate to their kids, he said.
But there is also a difference between valuing one’s immediate family and wanting to start a family, noted SMU psychologist William Tov. Mr Seah and Ms Srinivasan, who are single and not intending to start a family yet, said that family and friends are immensely important to them.
In pursuit of happiness
GIVEN that there are so many pathways to happiness, what then can be done to make Singaporeans happier? And what role should the Government play in making its citizens happy?
Prof Tan Soo Jiuan suggests that, as a start, the Government should look into the “necessary but not sufficient conditions” for happiness. The survey she and Dr Tambyah worked on shows that Singaporeans chose the ageing population and bread-and-butter issues like transport and housing as the areas they most want the Government to do more in, to improve their wellbeing.
There are also less tangible areas which have great impact on wellbeing. Prof Scollon says the Government could do more to promote work-life balance and build more green spaces.
There is also the difficult task of giving citizens hope. Prof Kotkin’s report on post-familialism indicates that societies with the lowest rates of family formation, including Singapore, are those with the highest percentages of people who believe their future will be worse than their present.
But not everything lies in the Government’s hands.
As Dr Tov notes: “The government can’t directly make people happy – all it can do is facilitate the conditions and create opportunities for people to meet their needs and achieve their goals.”
This can be enhanced by constant dialogue with the public and more systematic research on Singaporeans’ wellbeing, attitudes and their perceived ability to meet their goals, he said.
It also comes down to the values that people hold. As PM Lee said last month: “We can’t just measure our success by GDP growth, important as this is, but also by the growth of our values: compassion, empathy, altruism, love for our fellow citizens.”
But here again, it may not be up to the Government to construct values for its people. The UN report notes: “The government is never the main source of values in a healthy community… In well-functioning societies there is widespread support for the universal value that we should treat others as we would like them to treat us.”
Perhaps it also comes down to thinking more deeply about what really makes us happy. For instance, when people spend money, it is how they spend it which matters. Spending on experiences which can be shared – like travelling or going for a concert – or buying something for others contributes to social bonding and enhances wellbeing, said Dr Tov.
“Buying a nice pair of jeans… doesn’t get us as far in terms of bonding with others,” he said.
Ms Srinivasan feels Singaporeans too often do not stop to think about what makes them happy and what is most important in life. “In Singapore, everything is set. You go to a good school, pass PSLE, go to JC, go to university. At no point in time do you stop to question the system.
“There should be room to explore what’s important to you.”
Mrs Tan has reflected on this question. She says she is contented just running with her son and seeing him grow up with a big extended family. “Happiness is a rather superficial word. We find ourselves leading meaningful, complete lives,” she said.
This article first appeared in The Straits Times
