The Wellbeing of Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Satisfaction and Quality of Life

THE WELLBEING OF SINGAPOREANS Values, Lifestyles, Satisfaction and Quality of Life

This page intentionally left blank

THE WELLBEING OF SINGAPOREANS Values, Lifestyles, Satisfaction and Quality of Life

Tambyah Siok Kuan Tan Soo Jiuan Kau Ah Keng National University of Singapore

World Scientific NEW JERSEY

•

LONDON

•

SINGAPORE

•

BEIJING

•

SHANGHAI

•

HONG KONG

•

TA I P E I

•

CHENNAI

Published by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. 5 Toh Tuck Link, Singapore 596224 USA office: 27 Warren Street, Suite 401-402, Hackensack, NJ 07601 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

THE WELLBEING OF SINGAPOREANS Values, Lifestyles, Satisfaction and Quality of Life Copyright © 2010 by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.

For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.

ISBN-13 978-981-4277-17-4 ISBN-10 981-4277-17-7

Typeset by Stallion Press Email: [email protected]

Printed in Singapore.

Shujuan - the Wellbeing of Singaporeans.pmd 1

10/7/2009, 5:21 PM

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-fm

To my favorite Singaporean, Paul Ananth — Tambyah Siok Kuan To my mother, Madam Lim Yam Peng, my siblings, and their families — Tan Soo Jiuan To my wife, Mei, and our two sons, Ming and Kang — Kau Ah Keng

v

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

This page intentionally left blank

b773-fm

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-fm

Contents .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Acknowledgements

ix

About the Authors

xi

Preface

xv

Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Methodology

1

Chapter 2: Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

14

Chapter 3: Priorities in Life, Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

30

Chapter 4: Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

55

Chapter 5: Value Orientations and Lifestyles

68

Chapter 6: National Identity

87

Chapter 7: Democracy and Political Rights

96

Chapter 8: Determinants of Wellbeing

113

Chapter 9: Conclusion and Implications

126

References

137

Index

139 vii

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

This page intentionally left blank

b773-fm

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-fm

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the AsiaBarometer Project for generously providing the dataset for this book. Inoguchi, Takashi, et al. AsiaBarometer Survey Data 2006 AsiaBarometer Project (http://www.asiabarometer.org/) AsiaBarometer is a registered trademark of Professor Takashi Inoguchi, Chuo University, Japan, Director of the AsiaBarometer Project. Postal address: The AsiaBarometer Project, Room 31223, Building Three, Chuo University, Korakuen Campus, 1-13-27 Kasuga, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8551, Japan. E-mail address: [email protected] Some tables and materials were first published in our Social Indicators Research article cited below, and are re-used in this book with the kind permission of Springer Science and Business Media. Tambyah, SK, Tan SJ and Kau AK (2009). The quality of life in Singapore. Social Indicators Research, 92(2), 337–376.

ix

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

This page intentionally left blank

b773-fm

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-fm

About the Authors Dr Tambyah Siok Kuan Dr Tambyah (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Senior Lecturer in Marketing at the NUS Business School, National University of Singapore. Her research and teaching interests include consumption and identity, ethnicity, gender, luxury consumption, consumer culture, consumer values, cross-cultural consumer behavior and the consumption of place. She has published in the Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, International Marketing Review, Social Indicators Research and Advances in Consumer Research. Dr Tambyah also coauthored a book on the values and lifestyles of Singaporeans (Understanding Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Aspirations and Consumption Behaviors, World Scientific Press, 2004). In addition to academic research, she has applied qualitative research methods in consulting projects with numerous companies in Singapore. Dr Tan Soo Jiuan Dr Tan (PhD, Washington University (St. Louis), USA) is an Associate Professor at the Department of Marketing, NUS Business School. She also serves as the Second Vice President of the Marketing Institute of Singapore and is the Chairman of its Board of Studies. Prior to joining academia, Dr Tan was with the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Export Credit Insurance Corporation of Singapore. She has published several articles in academic journals such as Journal of International Business Studies, Marketing Letters, Social Indicators Research, xi

July 2, 2009

xii

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-fm

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Journal of Business Research, Journal of Marketing Communications, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, European Journal of Marketing and Journal of Business Venturing. Dr Tan has provided consulting experience in major public and private organizations and has also conducted market feasibility and industries studies for corporations including as Danone, Singapore Telecommunications, Singapore Pools (Pte) Ltd and Export Credit Insurance Corporation of Singapore. Her research interests focus on consumer values and lifestyles, game-theoretic applications in marketing, global product management, international market entry strategies, and marketing strategies for SMEs and entrepreneurial firms. Dr Tan is also a co-author of three books: Competing for Markets (with Lim Guan Hua and Lee Khai Sheang), Seven Faces of Singaporeans (with Kau Ah Keng and Jochen Wirtz), and Understanding Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Aspirations and Consumption Behaviors (with Kau Ah Keng, Jung Kwon, and Tambyah Siok Kuan).

Dr Kau Ah Keng Dr Kau is presently the Deputy Director of the NUS Entrepreneurship Centre and a professorial fellow with the Department of Business Policy, NUS Business School, National University of Singapore. He received his PhD in Business Administration from the London Graduate School of Business Studies, U.K. He served as the head of the Department of Marketing (1988–89; 1990–93 and 1997–2000), National University of Singapore. He was also the Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Business Administration (1982–85 and 1987–88) and Director of the School of Postgraduate Management Studies in charge of the MBA program (1987–88), National University of Singapore. He was a visiting scholar at various Business Schools, including the University of Michigan, Tsing Hua University, University of New South Wales, Stanford University and Lingnan University in Hong Kong. He previously taught in the BBA/MBA programs at the NUS Business School and also conducted executive development programs in both English and Mandarin for business executives from Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, China and the region. He has also served as training and research consultants to various corporations in Singapore and the region.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

About the Authors

b773-fm

xiii

Dr Kau has published extensively in various international journals, including the Journal of Marketing Research, International Marketing Review, Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Small Business, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Tourism Management, Psychology and Marketing, Journal of Travel Research, Social Indicators Research and Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research. He has jointly authored three books: Values and Lifestyles of Singaporeans: A Marketing Perspective (Singapore University Press 1991), Seven Faces of Singaporeans: Their Values, Aspirations and Lifestyles (Prentice Hall 1998) and Understanding Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Aspirations and Consumption Behaviors (World Scientific 2004). Dr Kau previously served in the editorial boards of the Journal of World Business (formerly the Columbia Journal of World Business), International Marketing Review, Journal of International Marketing, Singapore Marketing Review and the Asian Journal of Marketing. Presently, he is in the editorial advisory boards of the Journal of Asia Pacific Marketing, Journal of Consumer Behavior and the Singapore Management Review. Dr Kau also currently serves as a member of the Academic Advisory Council of Raffles University. He is also a Director of the Board of Directors, Jimei School of Business Administration, Jimei University, Xiamen, China. He was previously Chairman of the Academic Board of the PSB Academy, Singapore from 2001–2006 and a Council member of the Marketing Institute of Singapore (2000–2005).

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

This page intentionally left blank

b773-fm

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-fm

Preface This book is for all our fellow Singaporeans, regardless of race, language or religion. It is an integral part of a stream of research on issues relating to the aspirations, values, lifestyles, life satisfaction, and quality of life for Singaporeans. Since the early 1990s, Dr Kau Ah Keng has been involved with different collaborators in this area of research. Dr Tan Soo Jiuan was part of the research team in 1996 and 2001, while Dr Tambyah Siok Kuan participated in the 2001 study. Research on the wellbeing of individuals and communities continues to fascinate us and many other researchers round the world. The dataset analysed in this book was from the AsiaBarometer 2006 Survey. Our association with the AsiaBarometer Project began when we collaborated with like-minded researchers in the Asian region in crafting a special issue on Quality of Life in Confucian Asia. This special issue is available in Social Indicators Research [92(2), 2009], a leading journal dedicated to the study of quality of life issues (http://springerlink.com). Following up on this special issue, we have taken the initiative to provide a more indepth analysis of the Singapore dataset. In this book, we are able to move beyond the constraints of a journal article and discuss more issues about the wellbeing of Singaporeans. We are also able to provide more comparative analyses with the other East Asian countries surveyed, namely China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. These comparisons give us invaluable insights into what makes Singaporeans similar to or different from her East Asian neighbors.

xv

This page intentionally left blank

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

1 Introduction and Research Methodology .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Studies on wellbeing and the quality of life have been conducted by national governments, research organizations, international agencies and scholars in the fields of sociology, psychology, economics, management and other disciplines for many decades. The results of these studies provide insights into what makes people happy, enjoy their lives and feel a sense of achievement. The measurement of the quality of life has been operationalized using various approaches such as social indicators, subjective wellbeing or economic indices (Ring et al., 2007; Diener and Fujita, 1997). The social indicators method relies on the use of social statistics such as those related to health and education to measure their effects on the quality of life of people. The subjective wellbeing approach emphasises people’s satisfaction with life or their levels of happiness. Similarly, economic indices such as income and the level of poverty have been used as indicators of the quality of life. Responses to these quality of life or wellbeing indicators could be collected at the level of the individual, community, region or country. Countrylevel data collected over different time periods are particularly useful and important for the governments concerned in measuring the progress made by individual nations over time. Social scientists and policy planners are also interested in the aspirations, values, priorities and worries of individuals and communities, as they provide insights into how the living environment might be enhanced to help people lead more satisfying lives. The research on wellbeing and the quality of life has also highlighted the multi-dimensionality of these concepts. Both subjective and objective

1

July 2, 2009

2

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

measures have been used to develop a composite index of quality of life. One of the common approaches adopted to assess quality of life or subjective wellbeing (SWB) is to examine people’s evaluation of their lives at both the affective and cognitive levels (Diener, 1984). The affective component is defined “as the balance of pleasures and displeasures in people’s lives” (Schimmack, Schupp and Wagner, 2008). The cognitive component is based on subjective evaluation theories of wellbeing (Summer, 1996). People evaluate their lives on the “basis of a comparison of a subjectively constructed ideal and a comparison of their actual life with this ideal” (Schimmack et al., 2008). Cognitive wellbeing is frequently measured as satisfaction with life as a whole and satisfaction with specific domains of life (e.g., material wellbeing, community wellbeing, health and safety). Take the Quality of Life Index developed by the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Chan et al., 2005) as an example. It incorporated both objective and subjective measures and comprised 21 indicators in three sub-groups: the sociocultural sub-index (e.g., mortality rate and life expectancy), the economic sub-index (e.g., housing affordability and rate of unemployment) and the environmental sub-index (e.g., air index and water index). Out of the 21 indicators, six are measures of the subjective feelings of individuals. The respondents were asked to respond to questions on stress, general life satisfaction, press freedom and government performance. Based on all the measures, a composite index was then developed to gauge the quality of life in Hong Kong. In Singapore, the research on wellbeing and the quality of life has been more fragmented. Although various official and academic data sources on social statistics and economic performance indicators are available, no composite index of the quality of life in Singapore has been systematically reported. However, several studies on life satisfaction as a whole and with specific domains of life, and their relationships to happiness have been conducted (e.g., Kau and Wong, 1995; Kau et al., 1998; Kau et al., 2004; Swinyard et al., 2001). In these studies, life satisfaction was measured at the overall level as well as at the domain level (e.g., satisfaction with types of relationships, job, health, leisure and material comfort). As reported in

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Introduction and Research Methodology

b773-ch01

3

Kau et al. (2004), comparing 1996 and 2001 figures, Singaporeans’ level of satisfaction with life in general has been enhanced. However, their levels of satisfaction with specific aspects of living in Singapore have somewhat decreased. On a global basis, the World Values Survey has embarked on a study of happiness, life satisfaction and values since 1981. It is a worldwide investigation of sociocultural and political change conducted by a network of social scientists at leading universities all around the world. With regard to life satisfaction, the respondents were asked the question “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” using a scale ranging from 1 for “completely dissatisfied” to 10 for “completely satisfied”. On Happiness, they were asked to respond to a question “Taking all things together, would you say you are….” using the scale ranging from 1 for “very happy”, 2 for “rather happy”, 3 for “not very happy” and 4 for “not at all happy”. Past data on these measures for selected countries can be downloaded or analyzed online by assessing its web site at www.worldvaluessurvey.org/. A global perspective of happiness and life satisfaction was also reported by Inglehart et al. (2008). The research on wellbeing and the quality of life has often examined the influence of extraneous variables such as value orientations and lifestyles on the level of happiness and satisfaction (e.g., Ahuvia, 2002; Hellevik, 2003; La Barbera and Gurhan, 1997; Ryan and Dziurawiec, 2001; Tan et al., 2006). Values are defined as “enduring beliefs that one mode of conduct or end-state of existence is preferable to an opposing mode of conduct or end-state of existence” (Rokeach, 1973). Values can be further distinguished as terminal values (i.e., “desirable states of existence”) and instrumental values (i.e., “desirable modes of conduct”). Lifestyles refer to “how people live, how they spend their money, and how they allocate their time”, thus alluding to “the overt actions and behavior” of people (Mowen, 1995). The study of values and lifestyles has been fruitfully integrated into psychographic profiling, a body of techniques that help to define groups or clusters of people based on psychological, sociological, and anthropological factors (Demby, 1994). One of the most well-known psychographic

July 2, 2009

4

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

profiling methods is the Values and Lifestyles (VALS) system reported by Arnold Mitchell (1983) in his book on The Nine American Lifestyles. The latest VALS-2 categorization by SRI Consulting Business Intelligence (www.sric-bi.com/VALS) grouped American adult consumers into one of eight segments along two dimensions: primary motivation and resources. Based on these two dimensions, eight consumer segments were developed as follows: (1) Innovators, (2) Thinkers, (3) Achievers, (4) Experiencers, (5) Believers, (6) Strivers, (7) Makers and (8) Survivors. The VALS system of classification has also been adapted and used in many countries in Europe and Asia. For example in Asia, the JapanVALS system classifies respondents into ten clusters based on two important attributes: life orientation and attitudes to social change (see www.sricbi.com/VALS/JVALS). In Singapore, the first values and lifestyles study was initiated by Kau and Yang (1991). Over 2000 respondents aged 15 to 40 years answered questions on their value perceptions, moral standards, religious inclinations, concepts about family, pecuniary adherence, attitudes towards education and media credibility, leisure activities, shopping behaviors, media and reading habits, and satisfaction with life. Six segments of Singaporeans were identified based on two dimensions: value perception and psychological orientation. A second values and lifestyles study was conducted in 1996 using a sample of 1600 respondents (Kau, Tan and Wirtz, 1998). In this study, seven clusters of consumers were identified as follows: Traditional Family-Oriented, New Age Family-Oriented, Entrepreneurs, Aspirers, Materialists, Pragmatists, and Independents. These clusters were derived based on six dimensions of the value systems of Singaporeans, namely their orientations towards family values, entrepreneurial spirit, status, traditional values, materialism, and society. In the third study conducted in 2001 with 1500 respondents, eight clusters of consumers were identified: (1) Traditional Family-Oriented (9% of respondents), (2) New Age Family-Oriented (6.1%), (3) Modern Pragmatists (10.5%), (4) Materialistic Entrepreneurs (9%), (5) Entrepreneurial Strivers (9.1%), (6) Dreamers (9.5%), (7) Aspirers (28.3%) and Independents (19.5%). As in the 1996 study, these clusters were found to engage in different lifestyles and demonstrated differences in their aspirations and consuming behaviors (Kau et al., 2004).

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Introduction and Research Methodology

b773-ch01

5

In continuing with the research on wellbeing, values and lifestyles, in this book, we report and discuss the results of the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey using primarily the Singapore respondent database. Familiar themes will be covered such as the standard of living, life satisfaction, satisfaction with specific life domains, priorities in life, happiness, enjoyment, achievement, overall quality of life, and value orientations (such as family values, spirituality, global outlook and the digital lifestyle). In addition, new themes on national identity, democracy and political rights will also be discussed. Additional insights into Singaporeans’ feelings and attitudes about these themes are also gained by making suitable comparisons with six other East Asian countries in the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey database (namely China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam). Overview of the AsiaBarometer Survey The AsiaBarometer Survey was launched in 2002 on the initiative of Takashi Inoguchi at Chuo University in Japan. To date, six consecutive annual surveys (from 2003 to 2008) have been completed in 27 countries and two regions in Asia. In outlining the aims, scope and development of the AsiaBarometer Survey, Inoguchi and Fujii (2008) highlighted the theoretical and practical importance of documenting and tracking the values and lifestyles of people in Asia, including the physical, psychological and sociological aspects of their lives. More critically, the AsiaBarometer Survey provides a rich source of data for academics, policy makers, business professionals and laypeople who are interested in exploring and learning more about Asia (www.asiabarometer.org). It is currently the largest comparative survey in Asia, covering East, Southeast, South and Central Asia. Singapore was involved in 2004 and 2006 as part of the AsiaBarometer Survey. In 2004, Singapore was one of thirteen countries of East and Southeast Asia surveyed. In 2006, Singapore was surveyed along with six East Asian societies (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam).

July 2, 2009

6

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Research Methodology Survey Questionnaire Questions in the AsiaBarometer survey were formulated with the input of local experts from each country during annual workshops. The questionnaire focuses on the daily lives of ordinary people in Asia and has nine clusters: (1) living conditions, (2) patterns of daily and economic life, (3) value priorities, (4) subjective quality of life, (5) quality of society, (6) identities, (7) political consciousness, (8) views on social issues, and (9) demographics. These clusters form a fairly consistent core for the surveys conducted across the various years and countries although some fine-tuning is done on a year-to-year basis. Local languages are used in the questionnaire to facilitate understanding and responses from the people surveyed. In the case of Singapore, four languages were used, namely Malay, Mandarin, Tamil and English. Sampling Procedures The AsiaBarometer Survey primarily employs a multi-stage stratified random methodology for all of its surveys. Sample sizes have been increasing through the years from 800 (2003 and 2004) to 1000 (2005 to 2007) and then to 2000 (2008). Typically, face-to-face interviewing is used with the exception of the placement method in Japan for the 2003 survey. Data collection via face-to-face interviews for the Singapore portion of the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey was conducted by Media Research Consultants Pte Ltd (MRC) from 28 June to 1 August 2006. MRC used the sampling frame from the Department of Statistics (DOS), Ministry of Trade and Industry. The sampling frame adopted a stratified two-stage sample design, using a computerized Master List of Houses in accordance with the specified sampling criteria. The Master List of Houses was derived from the records of all the houses listed during the 2000 Census of Population, and updated monthly to provide a comprehensive sampling frame for household surveys. MRC used the most updated sampling frame when the survey was commissioned.The Polling Districts (PDs) were stratified by three predominant house types, namely Public Housing (HDB), Private Houses and

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Introduction and Research Methodology

b773-ch01

7

Apartments and Others (Attap/Zinc-roofed houses and shophouses). The PDs were selected with probability proportional to size (i.e., number of houses within each PD). Within each selected PD, housing units were stratified by detailed housing types such as detached, semi-detached, terrace houses and the various public housing room types (e.g., 1 to 5 rooms, Executive flats, etc.). For every selected PD, housing units were selected by systematic sampling with a random start. The age of the selected respondents should be between 20 to 69 years, and who had most recently celebrated his/her birthday within the selected household. A total of 1038 respondents completed the survey. Sample Description Table 1 presents the profile of respondents who were surveyed in Singapore as part of the 2006 AsiaBarometer study. The profile is organized along the lines of the six demographic variables that will be used in further analyses and comparisons of the findings. These demographic variables are gender, marital status, age, education, income (annual household income) and religion. The sample had more female respondents (54.2%) compared to male respondents (45.8%). Most respondents (69.7%) are married and approximately a quarter (25.7%) are single. Widowed (1.6%) and divorced/separated (2.9%) respondents comprised a small proportion of the sample. In terms of age, the two larger groups of respondents are those aged 40–49 years (28.3%) and those aged 30–39 years (27.7%). For income, the majority are medium-income earners of $2000–$5000 (48%). Those earning less than $2000 (27.8%) or more than $5000 (24.2%) are almost equal in proportion. There are 18.2 percent who have a university or postgraduate qualification, while most would have completed at least secondary school (81.5%). Buddhists (30.1%) comprised the largest religious group in the survey, followed by Muslims (21.4%) and Christians (16.7%). As some demographic segments of the sample are very small in absolute numbers, care should be taken in interpreting statistical results in terms of representativeness and generalizability.

July 2, 2009

11:59

8

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 1 Profile of Respondents

AsiaBarometer Survey 2006

Percent

N

1. Gender — Male — Female Total

45.8 54.2 100

475 563 1038

25.7 69.7 2.9

267 724 30

1.6 100

2. Marital status — Single — Married — Divorced/ separated — Widowed Total

4. Education — No formal education — Primary school — Secondary/ ITE — GCE A/ diploma — University Total

19.7 27.7 28.3 17.2 7.0 100

N

49.0 51.0 100

1,357,377 1,412,913 2,770,290

31.0 61.4 2.8

858,133 1,700,462 76,346

17 1038

4.9 100

135,349 2,770,290

204 288 294 179 73 1038

3. Age (excluding 15–19) — 20–29 — 30–39 — 40–49 — 50–59 — 60–69 Total

19.0 24.4 26.0 20.4 10.2 100

347,724 446,679 476,447 372,917 186,508 1,830,275

17.2

335,527

10.5

205,224

30.9

600,717

23.7

460,396

17.7

343,791

2.0

21

16.5

171

44.3

460

19.0

197

18.2

189

100

1. Gender — Male — Female Total

Percent

2. Marital status — Single — Married — Divorced/ separated — Widowed Total

3. Age — 20–29 — 30–39 — 40–49 — 50–59 — 60–69 Total

Singapore General Household Survey 2005∗

1038

4. Education† — No formal education — Primary school — Secondary school — GCE A/ diploma — University Total

100

1,945,655 (Continued )

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Introduction and Research Methodology

(Continued )

Table 1

AsiaBarometer Survey 2006 5. Household income — No income — $1000 or below — $1001– $2000 — $2001– $3000 — $3001– $4000 — $4001– $5000 — $5001– $6000 — $6001– $7000 — $7001– $8000 — $8001– $9000 — $9001– $10,000 — More than $10,000 Total

Percent

30 54

18.4

185

22.3

224

15.7

158

10.0

101

6.9

69

5.0

50

4.1

41

2.7

27

1.7

17

3.9

39

100

Singapore General Household Survey 2005∗

N

3.0 6.4

9

5. Household income — No income — Below $1000 — $1000– $1999 — $2000– $2999 — $3000– $3999 — $4000– $4999 — $5000– $5999 — $6000– $6999 — $7000– $7999 — $8000– $8999 — $9000– $9999 — $10,000 and over

1038

Total

Percent

N (‘000)

10.1 4.8

106.4 50.6

12.5

130.8

12.7

133.5

11.5

120.2

9.3

97.9

7.9

82.5

6.3

65.7

5.0

52.1

3.9

41.1

2.8

29.7

13.2

138.3

100

1049.0

∗ Resident Population aged 15 years and above. † Resident Non-students aged 15 years and above.

Source: General Household Survey 2005, Dept of Statistics, Singapore www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/ ghsr1.html.

July 2, 2009

11:59

10

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 1

AsiaBarometer Survey 2006 Religion — Buddhism — Islam — Christianity — Hinduism — Taoism — Other religion — No religion Total

Percent

N

30.1 21.4 16.7 9.0 8.5 1.7

312 222 173 93 88 17

12.8

133

100

1038

(Continued ) Singapore Population Census 2000‡ Religion — Buddhism — Islam — Christianity — Hinduism — Taoism — Other religions — No Religion Total

Percent

N

42.5 14.9 14.6 4.0 8.5 0.6

1,060,662 371,660 364,087 99,904 212,344 15,879

14.8

370,094

100

2,494,630

‡ Based on Singapore Population Census 2000 for residents aged 15 years and above.

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

Representativeness of Sample The profile of respondents is matched against the national averages derived from the 2005 General Household Survey for gender, marital status, age, education and income. For religion, national averages from the 2000 Population Census were used as the 2005 General Household Survey did not have comparable figures. Singapore’s population stands at 4,351,400 as at end June 2005, an increase of 1.6 percent per annum since 2000. Of this population, 18.3 percent (797,000) is non-resident. Based on the national population of individuals aged 15 years and above, the gender ratio is 49 percent male and 51 percent female. Thus males seemed to be a little underrepresented in the sample. For marital status, singles (31%) and widowed individuals (4.9%) are under-represented, while married individuals (61.4%) are over-represented. In terms of age groups, people in their fifties and sixties are under-represented while those in their thirties and forties are overrepresented. For education, those with no formal education and GCE A level/Diploma education are under-represented while those with primary

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Introduction and Research Methodology

b773-ch01

11

and secondary level education are over-represented. In terms of income, the low income group (those with no income and/or earning less than $2000) comprised 27.8 percent of the sample. This percentage is close to the 27.4 percent in the population. The medium income group (those earning $2000 to $4999) is over-represented in the sample (48%) compared to the population (33.5%). In contrast, the high income group comprising those earning $5000 and more is under-represented (24.3% of the sample) compared to 39.1 percent of the population. For religious groups, Buddhists and those with no religion are slightly under-represented in the survey and Muslims and Hindus were over-represented. Taoists and Christians would be considered adequately represented. In the following chapters, our discussion on the findings will take into account similarities and differences among various demographic groups. For marital status, we will only compare the responses of single and married people as the numbers for those who are divorced, widowed or separated are too small. For education, we have three levels namely, low (those with no formal education or primary school education), medium (those with secondary/GCE O Level, post secondary/ITE or GCE A Level/Diploma qualifications), and high (those with university or postgraduate degrees). Similarly, we have three levels of income. They are low (those earning $2000 or less), medium (those earning $2001 to $5000), and high (those earning $5001 and more). To facilitate comparisons among the religious groups, we have reclassified the groups as follows: (1) Christians (which includes Catholics and Protestant Christians), (2) Muslims, (3) Buddhists (which includes Taoists), (4) Hindus and (5) None (those with no religion). For the cross-country comparisons with the six East Asian countries mentioned earlier, although we are not able to conduct detailed demographic analyses for these countries, the general means and percentages would still provide us with valuable insights into how respondents in these various countries felt about key social and political issues. Organization of Book In Chapter 2, we evaluate the perceptions of Singaporeans with regard to their standard of living in Singapore and their satisfaction with specific

July 2, 2009

12

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch01

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

life domains in their physical, social and spiritual environment. The 16 life domains were housing, friendships, marriage (for those who are married), standard of living, household income, health, education, job, neighbors, public safety, the condition of the environment, the social welfare system, the democratic system, family life, leisure and spiritual life. After an overview of Singaporeans’ standard of living and life satisfaction, we focus on the priorities in life for Singaporeans in Chapter 3. Priorities in life refer to the resources and activities which people consider important in helping them to live a satisfying life. We juxtapose these with the top worries of Singaporeans, and then assess how Singaporeans feel about the various areas of government spending and how some of these concerns may be addressed. In Chapter 4, we explore the more affective aspects of wellbeing by having Singaporeans evaluate how happy they were, whether they were enjoying life, and if they felt they had achieved what they wanted in life. We also discuss Singaporeans’ overall quality of life using a composite index of responses on the three dimensions of happiness, enjoyment and achievement. In Chapter 5, we discuss the value orientations and lifestyles of Singaporeans, in terms of their family orientation, their spirituality, their global outlook, and their digital lifestyle. In Chapter 6, we examine the essence of the Singaporean national identity using indicators such as English fluency, national identification and national pride. We also assess how Singaporeans feel about the superiority of their culture, their opinions about restrictions on the foreign workforce and their views about patriotic education. In Chapter 7, we discuss how Singaporeans feel about democracy and political rights such as the system of governance, their involvement in political action, their level of satisfaction with the scope of rights, their views about political rights and the influence of media. After highlighting the various aspects of the quality of life for Singaporeans, we examine the influence of demographic and non-demographic factors on the wellbeing of Singaporeans. The results of the regression analyses are reported in Chapter 8. The indicators of wellbeing, namely, happiness, enjoyment, achievement and the overall quality of life were used as dependent variables. Twenty one independent variables were used. Four were demographic variables (gender, age, education and income). Seventeen

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Introduction and Research Methodology

b773-ch01

13

were non-demographic variables (fluency in English, religiosity, satisfaction with the personal life sphere, satisfaction with the interpersonal life sphere, satisfaction with the public life sphere, national pride, ethnocentrism, and how well the government is dealing with different issues in the country). Finally in Chapter 9, we review the significant results gleaned from the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey, and outline their implications for the wellbeing of Singaporeans.

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

2 Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In this chapter, we report the perceptions of Singaporeans with regard to their standard of living in Singapore, and how these vary across demographic groups. We also examine the satisfaction levels of Singaporeans with specific life domains. These 16 domains cover a broad spectrum of life experiences in a person’s physical, social and spiritual environment. In addition, selective comparisons are made with respect to responses from the six other East Asian countries in the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey database (notably China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam).

Standard of Living The 2008 worldwide Quality of Living Survey conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consultancy assessed Singapore to be the 32nd best city in the world, with an index of 102.9, up from 102.5 in 2007 (34th rank). According to the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey, Singaporeans have easy access to essential utilities such as public water supply (99.4%), electricity (99.7%), LPG or piped gas (93.6%) and fixed-line phones (92%). These are modern conveniences that Singaporeans living in an urbanized city take for granted. Given that Singaporeans have a relatively comfortable living environment, how do Singaporeans perceive their standard of living? Most Singaporeans described their standard of living as “average” (72.2%) while a combined 22.6 percent felt they had a “high” (6.8%) or “relatively 14

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

Table 2.1a Countries)

FA

b773-ch02

15

Perceptions of Standards of Living (Singapore and Six East Asian

Percentage of respondents Standard of living High Relatively high Average Relatively low Low

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

6.8 15.8 72.2 ∗ ∗

∗ 9.7 68.0 16.0 5.2

∗ 12.3 75.4 10.3 ∗

∗ 11.4 70.1 13.2 5.3

∗ 9.3 61.7 22.6 5.5

∗ 8.1 83.6 6.8 1.5

∗ 8.6 77.2 8.3 5.9

Note: SP = Singapore, CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. ∗ Figures too small to be reported.

high” (15.8%) standard of living (see Table 2.1a). Compared to the other six East Asian countries, Singapore is the only country that had respondents indicating a “high” standard of living (see Table 2.1a). Singapore also had close to a quarter of its people reporting an above average standard of living, although it is fourth behind Taiwan, Vietnam and Hong Kong for people who reported an “average” standard of living. In China and South Korea, fewer people felt that their standard of living was “average” and there was a bigger gap between those with disparate views (either positive or negative) of their standards of living. When we evaluated Singaporeans’ responses by examining their demographic characteristics (see Table 2.1b), singles (22.5%) and married people (23.5%) were almost equally contented, but females (20.2%, compared to 23.5% of males) were less likely to view themselves as having a higher standard of living. Positive perceptions about their standard of living also declined with age from a high of 25 percent for 20–29 year olds to a low of 17.8 percent for those aged 60–69 years. Those with higher educational levels and households incomes perceived their standards of living to be higher. Among the various religious groups, Hindus (32.3%) and Christians (30.1%) rated their perceived standard of living highly compared to the Muslims (82.4%) who mostly rated their standard of living as “average”. Hindus and Christians perceived their standards of living to be high and relatively high (32.3% and 30.1% respectively) or low and relatively low

June 18, 2009

18:30

16

Table 2.1b

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Perceptions of Standard of Living by Demographics (Singapore) Percentages who rated their standard of living as: High & relatively high

Average

Gender Male Female

23.5 20.2

69.7 74.2

4.8 5.5

Marital Status Single Married

22.5 23.5

71.5 72.9

5.9 3.6

Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69

25.0 23.6 23.4 19.0 17.8

69.6 71.9 70.7 76.0 76.7

5.5 4.5 5.8 5.0 5.5

Education Low Medium High

16.9 20.7 43.3

76.4 74.2 56.1

6.7 5.2 0.5

Household Income Low Medium High

12.2 21.2 33.4

73.5 76.4 65.4

14.3 2.3 1.2

Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

30.1 14.0 21.1 32.3 23.3

63.6 82.4 73.7 58.1 73.7

6.3 3.6 5.2 9.6 3.0

Demographics

Relatively low & low

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

(9.6% and 6.3% respectively), registering the two highest percentages at the extreme ends of the spectrum. The Buddhists and those with no religion had fairly similar percentages in their responses, with slightly more than seven in ten rating their standard of living as “average”.

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

FA

b773-ch02

17

Satisfaction with Life Domains In addition to reporting their standard of living, respondents of the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey were asked to rate their satisfaction with their life domains using a scale as follows: 1 for “very satisfied”, 2 for “somewhat satisfied”, 3 for “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied”, 4 for “somewhat dissatisfied” and 5 for “very dissatisfied”. Lower means thus indicated a greater degree of satisfaction. The 16 life domains were housing, friendships, marriage (for those who are married), standard of living, household income, health, education, job, neighbors, public safety, the condition of the environment, the social welfare system, the democratic system, family life, leisure and spiritual life. Table 2.2a presents Singaporeans’ more specific assessments of these 16 life domains. The figures show the distribution of responses ranging from very dissatisfied (−2) to very satisfied (+2), the means and finally, the PDI values which reflect the gap between the respondents’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels with each domain. The PDI values are positive and greater than 50 percent for all the 16 domains, ranging from 50.5 percent to 93.4 percent. Generally, it appears that Singaporeans are contented with the various aspects of living in Singapore. These findings are similar to Kau et al. (2004). Although the aspects of life surveyed in their 2001 nationwide Values and Lifestyles (VALS) study were different from the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey, the reported life satisfaction among Singaporeans was high. Of the people surveyed, 76.9 percent expressed their overall satisfaction with life in general. More than half (or 56.4%) of those surveyed also reported satisfaction with life in Singapore. They were most satisfied with the cleanliness of the country (64%), followed by the level of safety and security (62%), the quality of law enforcement (59%), the availability of public services (57%) and the way the government runs the country (57%). On the other hand, they were least satisfied with the cost of living (35%), the affordability of properties (33%) and the affordability of cars (28%). According to the results of the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey (see Table 2.2a), Singaporeans were most satisfied with their marriages (for those who are married) (PDI = 93.4%), family life (PDI = 91.1%), friendships (PDI = 88.1%), public safety (PDI = 83.9%) and housing (PDI = 83.6%). They were least satisfied with their household incomes (PDI = 50.5%), the

June 18, 2009

18

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 2.2a Assessments of Life Domains (Singapore) Percentages who indicated they are

Scale points −2 −1 Housing Friendships Marriage∗ Standard of living Household income Health Education Job Neighbors Public safety Environment Welfare system Democratic system Family life Leisure Spiritual life

Satisfied Dissatisfied PDI (A) (B) (A −B)

1

2

Mean

33.8 35.5 61.7 20.3

53.4 54.2 33.0 55.7

1.17 1.23 1.55 0.88

87.2 89.7 94.7 76.0

3.6 1.6 1.3 7.2

+ 83.6 +88.1 +93.4 +68.8

2.7 11.6 20.9 15.8 49.0 0.64

64.8

14.3

+50.5

0.6 0.6 2.4 0.7 0.5 1.1 2.9 2.6

4.8 8.3 7.5 3.3 2.6 2.3 7.5 5.9

1.09 0.88 0.80 1.02 1.14 1.05 0.62 0.68

83.7 72.9 70.9 81.0 87.0 85.2 61.5 66.4

5.4 8.9 9.9 4.0 3.1 3.4 10.4 8.4

+78.3 +64.0 +61.0 +77.0 +83.9 +81.8 +51.1 +58.0

0.3 0.3 0.3

1.1 6.2 47.0 45.5 1.38 3.2 12.5 25.9 58.2 1.06 1.6 14.4 29.3 54.4 1.11

92.5 84.1 83.7

1.4 3.5 1.9

+91.1 +80.6 +81.8

0.7 0.1 0.1 1.1

0

2.9 9.2 1.5 8.7 1.2 3.9 6.1 16.9

11.5 18.2 19.2 15.1 9.9 11.5 28.1 25.1

30.7 24.6 21.7 25.3 31.0 24.4 13.9 12.9

53.0 48.3 49.2 55.7 56.0 60.8 47.6 53.5

Notes: −2: very dissatisfied/−1: somewhat dissatisfied/0: neither satisfied nor dissatisfied/+1: somewhat satisfied/+2: very satisfied. ∗ Only among those who are married. Bold figures indicate most satisfied assessments. Figures that are underlined indicate least satisfied assessments. Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

social welfare system (PDI = 51.1%), the democratic system (PDI = 58%), their jobs (PDI = 61%) and education (PDI = 64%). The responses of people from the six East Asian countries were varied as far as satisfaction and dissatisfaction with life domains are concerned (see Table 2.2b). Like the married Singaporeans, married people in China, Hong Kong, Japan and Vietnam were most satisfied with marriage (PDI = 69.3%, 70.2%, 79.1% and 74.8%, respectively). However, unlike Singaporeans, most people

FA

June 18, 2009

Table 2.2b Assessments of Life Domains (Six East Asian Countries)

A

B

25.7 21.5

32.4 57.5 69.3 19.4

B

P

A

B

54.8 10.5 44.3 69.4 15.0 72.6 2.2 70.4 81.3 2.9 71.9 1.7 70.2 81.8 2.7 37.9 8.6 29.3 58.0 14.2

P 54.4 78.4 79.1 43.8

A

B

52.4 14.5 68.9 5.2 62.6 6.2 32.3 18.8

4.2 32.8 14.6 18.2 45.0 25.2 19.8 28.1 25.4

9.4 46.9 21.0 11.2 25.7 4.2 6.0 42.6 29.3 −4.2 21.4 9.7 48.1 −34.7 29.1 −11.3

Taiwan

P

A

B

P

37.9 63.7 56.4 13.5

58.4 72.5 71.9 44.5

8.0 1.9 2.9 6.6

50.4 70.6 69.0 37.9

58.2 15.4 54.1 4.4 76.8 2.0 32.0 9.8

42.8 49.7 74.8 22.2

2.7 38.0 13.2

24.8

27.1 15.2

11.9

59.5 6.9 52.6 71.3 11.7 59.6 57.1 14.8 42.3 59.7 36.5 12.4 24.1 53.2 8.5 44.7 35.8 17.1 18.7 41.7 41.2 8.4 32.8 50.9 12.7 38.2 34.4 21.7 12.7 34.4 34.9 7.6 27.3 55.8 5.9 49.9 56.2 5.3 50.9 58.3 52.6 7.0 45.6 54.2 16.4 37.8 36.8 16.2 20.6 17.2 41.6 7.2 34.4 65.7 11.0 54.7 42.4 15.1 27.3 36.3 30.1 12.8 17.3 27.0 26.9 0.1 17.7 29.9 −12.2 19.9 36.1 10.8 25.3 31.2 17.9 13.3 28.2 23.9 4.3 33.0

43.6 57.7 9.8 48.8 24.1 42.9

2.7 55.0 76.4 3.4 73.0 62.9 7.2 6.6 42.2 64.2 14.2 50.0 32.8 24.4 6.0 36.9 60.3 9.1 51.2 32.5 12.7

Vietnam

55.7 66.5 8.4 51.4 19.8 52.7

9.2 50.5 12.2 29.5 16.4 18.0 4.2 54.1 51.5 −34.3 17.2 19.1 35.2 −15.3 20.5 12.5 3.3 8.0 7.2

B

P

50.7 9.7 41.0 50.1 6.6 43.5 42.7 11.6 31.1 47.6 4.9 42.7 51.2 10.5 40.7 39.8 16.8 23.0 32.7 12.1 20.6 Question not asked. 66.9 40.9 54.5

3.3 5.8 4.4

63.6 35.1 50.1

19

Notes: A = Percentages who indicated satisfied, B = Percentages who indicated dissatisfied, P = PDI in terms of (A − B). ∗ Only among those who are married. Bold figures indicate most satisfied and least satisfied.

63.2 43.4 45.5

A

b773-ch02

51.5 7.9 30.1 20.3 39 14.9

A

South Korea

B-773

56.3 32.2 29.9 48.6 25.1 31.1 13.4 17.8

P

Japan

9in x 6in

48.7 16.3 60.0 2.5 72.7 3.4 32.0 12.6

Hong Kong

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

Housing Friendships Marriage∗ Standard of living Household income Health Education Job Neighbors Public safety Environment Welfare system Democratic system Family life Leisure Spiritual life

China

18:30

Country domains

FA

June 18, 2009

20

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

in China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea were least satisfied with the welfare system (PDI = −34.7%, 17.3%, 0.1% and −12.2%, respectively). South Koreans and Taiwanese were alike in being most satisfied with their friendships (PDI = 63.7% and 70.6%, respectively). Only people in Taiwan were least satisfied with public safety (PDI = −34.3%), while the Vietnamese were the only people least satisfied with household income (PDI = 11.9%). As a precursor to our discussion on family values in Chapter 5, we note that Singaporeans’ expectations and priorities in life regarding their families are reinforced by the finding that a large majority of Singaporeans were satisfied with their family life (92.5%, see Table 2.2a). The proportion of Singaporeans who were satisfied with their family life is highest amongst the six East Asian countries compared to China (51.5%), Hong Kong (57.7%), Japan (76.4%), South Korea (62.9%), Taiwan (66.5%) and Vietnam (66.9%) as shown in Table 2.2b. Singaporeans’ satisfaction with family life as the top life domain also applies across demographic groupings according to age, gender, education levels, income levels, marital status, and religion (see Table 2.3). Table 2.3 provides an overview of the domains that Singaporeans are most satisfied and dissatisfied with. Almost all respondents consistently chose marriage and family as the two domains they are most satisfied with, with the exceptions of singles (who chose family life and friendships) and Christians (who chose marriage and friendships). In terms of dissatisfaction, almost all respondents chose a combination of the three domains comprising the social welfare system, household income and the democratic system. The exceptions were those aged 60 years and above who were most dissatisfied with their jobs and education, and those with medium income who were concerned about their jobs (in addition to social welfare). Among the 20 categories of demographic variables analysed, the social welfare system appeared as the most common (mentioned 12 out of 20 times) as the domain Singaporeans were most unhappy about. Discontentment with the democratic system was most prevalent among males, singles, those in their twenties and thirties, those with medium income and those who are Buddhists or Christians.

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

FA

b773-ch02

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

21

Table 2.3 Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction with Life Domains by Demographics (Singapore) Types of domains

Types of domains

Number of domains

Most satisfied

Most dissatisfied

Satisfied Dissatisfied

Entire sample Marriage, Family Life Gender Male

Female

Marriage, Family Life Marriage, Family Life

Marital Status Single Family Life, Friendships

Married

Age 20–29

Marriage, Family Life

Marriage, Family Life

30–39

Marriage, Family Life

40–49

Marriage, Family Life Marriage, Family Life

50–59

60+

Marriage, Family Life

Social Welfare, Household Income

12.4

0.9

Social Welfare, Democratic system Household Income, Social welfare

12.4

0.9

12.3

0.9

Social Welfare, Household Income, Democratic System Social Welfare, Household Income

11.7

0.8

12.8

0.8

Household Income, Democratic System Social Welfare, Household Income, Democratic System Household Income, Social Welfare Social Welfare, Household Income Job, Education

12.1

0.8

12.5

0.8

12.3

0.9

12.5

0.9

12.3

0.9 (Continued )

June 18, 2009

18:30

22

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 2.3

Education Low Medium

High

Income Low

Middle High

Religion Christian

Muslim Buddhist

(Continued )

Types of domains

Types of domains

Most satisfied

Most dissatisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Household Income, Social Welfare Social Welfare, Democratic System Social Welfare, Household Income

12.4

0.9

12.2

0.7

12.5

0.7

Social Welfare, Household Income Job, Social Welfare

11.9

1.2

12.6

0.8

Social Welfare, Household Income

12.5

0.7

Social Welfare, Democratic System Household Income, Social Welfare Household Income, Democratic System Social Welfare, Household Income Social Welfare, Household Income

12.7

0.7

12.9

0.7

12.0

0.8

12.8

1.1

11.6

0.9

Marriage, Family Life Marriage, Family Life Marriage, Family Life

Marriage, Family Life Family Life, Marriage Marriage, Family Life

Marriage, Friendships Marriage, Family Life Marriage, Family Life

Hindu

Marriage, Family Life

None

Marriage, Family Life

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

Number of domains

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

FA

b773-ch02

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

23

Satisfaction Analysis by Demographics For a more detailed analysis, we compared and tested the means (using p < 0.05 as the significance level) for the top and bottom five life domains using gender, marital status, age, education, household income and religion as group variables. Significant differences were found for various demographic groups’ levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the life domains. As shown in Table 2.4, males and females were equally likely to be satisfied with the top five life domains with the exception of “public safety”. Males were more satisfied than females with this aspect of their lives. Generally, the married individuals were more satisfied over the four domains of family life, friendship, housing and public safety. The domain of marriage is excluded as there are no comparative statistics for the single respondents. Table 2.4 Means Comparison for Five Most Satisfied Life Domains by Demographics (Singapore) Demographics

Marriage

Family life

Friendships

Housing

Public Safety

Gender Male Female F-Stats P<0.05 Marital Status Single Married F-Stats P<0.05

1.42 1.48 1.67 NS

1.59 1.64 1.40 NS

1.75 1.78 0.66 NS

1.84 1.83 0.09 NS

1.81 1.90 3.46 0.06

NA 1.45 NA NA

1.76 1.54 23.91 0.00

1.78 1.75 0.19 NS

1.91 1.79 5.51 0.02

1.90 1.83 2.03 NS

Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 F-Stats P<0.05

1.33 1.43 1.42 1.52 1.57 1.465 NS

1.66 1.53 1.59 1.74 1.73 3.47 0.08

1.71 1.83 1.71 1.83 1.74 1.87 0.11

1.91 1.89 1.78 1.75 1.82 1.80 NS

1.94 1.77 1.87 1.82 1.99 2.35 0.05 (Continued )

June 18, 2009

18:30

24

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 2.4 Demographics Education Low Medium High F-Stats P<0.05 Household Income Low Medium High F-Stats P<0.05 Religion Christian Muslim Hindu Buddhist None F-Stats P<0.05

(Continued )

Marriage Family life Friendships Housing Public safety

1.47 1.34 1.45 4.53 0.03

1.63 1.58 1.62 1.04 NS

1.77 1.75 1.77 0.11 NS

1.84 1.80 1.83 0.32 NS

1.89 1.70 1.86 10.24 0.00

1.45 1.65 1.45 1.96 NS

1.62 1.64 1.62 0.02 NS

1.77 1.67 1.77 0.73 NS

1.83 1.85 1.83 0.01 NS

1.85 1.94 1.86 0.43 NS

1.45 1.29 1.24 1.55 1.59 7.41 0.00

1.62 1.44 1.43 1.70 1.80 10.10 0.00

1.69 1.60 1.65 1.88 1.83 7.82 0.00

1.71 1.75 1.72 1.89 2.04 5.27 0.00

1.84 1.76 1.67 1.92 1.97 4.04 0.00

NS = Not significant. Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

In particular, marital status accounted for significant differences in the two domains of “family life” and “housing.” The singles were happy with their family life (mean of 1.76) but not too happy (mean of 1.91) with their housing situation. Those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years were more satisfied with their family life. The youngest and oldest age groups were less satisfied with public safety compared with the other age groups. Education accounted for a significant difference in the satisfaction levels for “marriage” and “public safety”. Those who have medium levels of education were most satisfied with these two life domains, followed by those with higher education and then those with lower education. There were no significant differences in satisfaction with the top five life domains across the various income groups. However, there were significant differences in satisfaction with the top five life domains across the major religion groupings.

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

FA

b773-ch02

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

25

Within all five domains, Hindus and Muslims appeared to be happier. Hindus were the most satisfied about their marriages (their mean of 1.24 is the lowest score across all five domains and five religious groups). Those without any religion (None) were less satisfied with “housing” (mean of 2.04) and “public safety” (mean of 1.97) compared to the other religious groups. Christians were exceptionally more satisfied with their housing. Dissatisfaction Analysis by Demographics Generally, there were no significant differences in dissatisfaction levels between married and single people, and among the various income levels (see Table 2.5). However, for some other demographic groupings, there Table 2.5 Means Comparison for Five Most Dissatisfied Life Domains by Demographics (Singapore)

Demographics

Social welfare system

Household income

Democratic system

Job

Education

Gender Male Female F-Stats P<0.05 Marital Status Single Married F-Stats P<0.05

2.38 2.38 0.00 NS

2.34 2.39 0.75 NS

2.36 2.28 2.295 NS

2.12 2.27 5.98 0.02

2.04 2.18 6.28 0.01

2.37 2.37 0.01 NS

2.37 2.31 0.84 NS

2.37 2.30 1.20 NS

2.19 2.16 0.10 NS

2.03 2.13 2.37 NS

Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 F-Stats P<0.05

2.30 2.43 2.40 2.38 2.31 0.69 NS

2.38 2.34 2.44 2.31 2.25 0.96 NS

2.32 2.34 2.35 2.30 2.16 0.71 NS

2.17 2.12 2.19 2.28 2.44 1.66 NS

1.99 2.02 2.19 2.22 2.38 4.72 0.00 (Continued )

June 18, 2009

18:30

26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 2.5

Demographics Education Low Medium High F-Stats P<0.05 Household Income Low Medium High F-Stats P<0.05 Religion Christian Muslim Hindu Buddhist None F-Stats P<0.05

(Continued )

Social welfare Household Democratic system income system

Job

Education

2.34 2.55 2.38 8.03 0.00

2.42 2.10 2.36 18.10 0.00

2.27 2.55 2.32 17.03 0.00

2.23 2.06 2.20 4.87 0.03

2.23 1.64 2.12 71.0 0.00

2.38 2.32 2.38 0.11 NS

2.37 2.31 2.36 0.09 NS

2.32 2.32 2.32 0.00 NS

2.19 2.48 2.20 2.35 NS

2.12 2.24 2.12 0.64 NS

2.39 2.23 2.43 2.39 2.55 2.65 0.03

2.30 2.36 2.24 2.43 2.36 0.98 NS

2.31 2.08 2.29 2.40 2.50 6.51 0.00

2.03 2.20 2.11 2.24 2.32 2.16 NS

1.97 2.03 2.00 2.26 2.11 4.73 0.00

NS = Not significant. Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

were varying levels of dissatisfaction due to both economic and noneconomic factors. Those who are unhappy with their education, jobs and incomes could be facing various constraints in their quest for academic or career advancement. Women were significantly more dissatisfied about their jobs and education. They may feel disadvantaged compared to their male counterparts who have conventionally been given more opportunities to pursue higher education (General Household Survey, 2005), which in turn gave them better employment prospects. Others (e.g., like those in their forties) who may have missed out on higher education opportunities may be working in jobs or careers that do not provide the desired levels of financial capital, autonomy and/or prestige. Older workers may feel that

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

FA

b773-ch02

27

they are losing out to the younger generation of workers. They may be concerned about their aptitude for learning new skills and retraining to adjust to changing economic realities. However, education has some influence on one’s dissatisfaction ratings. The more highly educated group seemed to have more coping resources compared to the lower and medium income groups. Those with medium educational levels were dissatisfied with their household incomes, jobs and education, and even more so with the social welfare and democratic systems. Similarly, those with lower education were dissatisfied with the social welfare and democratic systems, and this unhappiness was augmented when they considered the economic aspects of their lives such as household incomes, jobs and education. Among the various religion groupings, Buddhists and those without any religion (None) were most dissatisfied with the social welfare system. Muslims were consistently the least dissatisfied over “social welfare system” and “democratic system”, while Christians were the least dissatisfied about education. Chapter Summary A majority of the Singaporeans reported at least an average standard of living, and compared to China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, Singapore had the highest percentage reporting a “relatively high” and “high” standard of living. Demographically, male and younger Singaporeans with higher education and household incomes tended to report higher standards of living. Among different religions, Singaporeans who are Hindus or Christians tended to report higher standards of living, although both groups also registered the highest and second-highest percentages at the lower end of the standard of living spectrum. Among the 16 life domains (housing, friendships, marriage (for those who are married), standard of living, household income, health, education, job, neighbors, public safety, the condition of the environment, the social welfare system, the democratic system, family life, leisure and spiritual life), the average number of life domains that Singaporeans were satisfied with was 12.3536 domains. They were dissatisfied with an average of less than one domain (0.8507). Hence, on the whole, Singaporeans were very satisfied

June 18, 2009

28

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch02

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

with life, especially in terms of the top five domains of marriage (for those who are married), family life, friendships, public safety, and housing. They were least satisfied with their household incomes, the social welfare system, the democratic system, their jobs, and education. Like married Singaporeans, married people in China, Hong Kong, Japan and Vietnam were most satisfied with marriage. Most people in China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea were least satisfied with the welfare system; South Koreans and Taiwanese were alike in being most satisfied with their friendships. Only people in Taiwan were least satisfied with public safety. Significant differences were found for various demographic groups’ levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the 16 life domains discussed. For the “public safety” domain, male Singaporeans were more satisfied than their female counterparts, while married Singaporeans were more satisfied than single respondents over the domains of “family life” and “housing”. Those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years were more satisfied with their family life. The youngest and oldest age groups were less satisfied with public safety compared with the other age groups. Those who have medium levels of education were most satisfied with “marriage” and “public safety”, followed by those with higher education and then those with lower education. There were no significant differences in satisfaction with the top five life domains across the various income groups. However, there were significant differences in satisfaction with the top five life domains across the major religion groupings. Within all five domains, Hindus and Muslims appeared to be happier. Hindus were the most satisfied about their marriages, while those without any religion (None) were less satisfied with “housing” and “public safety”. Christians were exceptionally more satisfied with their housing. In terms of dissatisfaction domains, females were significantly more dissatisfied with their jobs and education, while the older age groups were increasingly dissatisfied with education. Those aged 40–49 years registered considerable dissatisfaction with their household incomes, while those aged 60–69 years were unhappy with their jobs. Those with medium educational levels were dissatisfied with their household incomes, jobs and education, and even more so with the social welfare and democratic systems. Similarly, those with lower education were dissatisfied with the social welfare and democratic systems. Across religions,

FA

June 18, 2009

18:30

9in x 6in

B-773

Standard of Living and Satisfaction with Life Domains

FA

b773-ch02

29

Buddhists and those without any religion (None) were most dissatisfied with the social welfare system, the democratic system and education compared to the rest of the religious groups. Muslims were consistently the least dissatisfied group over “social welfare system” and “democratic system”, while Christians were the least dissatisfied group about education.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

3 Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In this chapter, we discuss the priorities in life for Singaporeans, juxtapose these with their top worries, and then assess how Singaporeans view the various areas of government spending. Selective cross-country comparisons will also be made with samples from the other East Asian societies (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam). Priorities in Life Priorities in life refer to the resources and activities which people consider important in ensuring their quality of life. The frequencies presented in Table 3.1a show how often a particular priority was selected by Singaporeans as important to their life satisfaction. Singaporeans valued “being healthy” (83.8%), “having a comfortable home” (62.6%), “having a job” (58.5%), “spending time with family” (52.2%) and “having enough to eat” (43.4%). These top five priorities reflect Singaporeans’ concern for their personal wellbeing (in terms of physical health and gainful employment) and the wellbeing of their families (in terms of the quality of family life). “Being healthy” continues to be highly prized; Singaporeans have consistently chosen “health” as the number one thing that they wanted most in life when surveyed in 1996 and 2001 (Kau et al., 2004). “Having access to good medical care” (27.6%) was ranked number six highlighting its importance as the means to achieving the top priority of health. In tandem with 30

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

Table 3.1a

31

Priorities in Life (Singapore)

Resource/Activity 1. Being healthy 2. Having a comfortable home 3. Having a job 4. Spending time with family 5. Having enough to eat 6. Having access to good medical care 7. Raising children 8. Earning a high income 9. Safe and clean environment 10. Being able to live without fear of crime 11. Living in a country with good government 12. Being successful at work 13. Being on good terms with others 14. Enjoying a pastime 15. Pleasant community to live 16. Having access to higher education 17. Being devout 18. Freedom of expression and association 19. Expressing your personality or using your talents 20. Contributing to your local community or to society 21. Owning lots of nice things 22. Appreciating art and culture 23. Dressing up 24. Winning over others 25. Being famous

Percentages

Rank

83.8 62.6 58.5 52.2 43.4 27.6 25.7 24.6 19.2 18.6 16.8 15.6 11.1 10.0 7.2 4.2 4.0 3.3 2.8 2.7 1.8 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Figures in bold indicate the top 5 resources or activities which were considered important. Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

spending quality time with one’s family, Singaporeans are also attentive to “raising children” (25.7%), the seventh-ranked priority. In sum, the top seven priorities appear to be the fundamental bread-and-butter issues that rational and family-oriented Singaporeans are concerned about. Hong Kong is the only country among the six East Asian countries to share the same top five priorities in life as Singaporeans as shown in Table 3.1b. While people in all six countries were similar to Singaporeans in identifying their top priority in life as “being healthy”, only those in

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

32

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.1b

Priorities in Life (Six East Asian Countries) Percentages

Top priorities

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

1. Being healthy 2. Having a comfortable home 3. Having a job 4. Spending time with family 5. Having enough to eat 6. Having access to good medical care 7. Raising children 8. Earning a high income 9. Safe and clean environment 10. Being able to live without fear of crime 11. Living in a country with good government 12. Being successful at work 13. Being on good terms with others 14. Enjoying a pastime 15. Pleasant community to live 16. Having access to higher education 17. Being devout 18. Freedom of expression and association 19. Expressing your personality or using your talents 20. Contributing to your local community or to society 21. Owning lots of nice things 22. Appreciating art and culture 23. Dressing up 24. Winning over others 25. Being famous

84.2 54.3 22.4 30.2 46.2 36.1 33.2 26.0 12.8 24.3

81.6 58.8 43.6 36.0 33.7 26.8 27.3 29.1 12.6 28.6

80.1 36.4 33.5 42.1 42.1 28.4 18.6 7.9 15.2 28.0

89.3 47.2 30.7 41.8 22.0 17.4 31.3 42.1 20.0 11.9

71.7 39.0 32.3 31.8 24.1 19.5 25.5 34.0 20.2 41.7

81.0 41.4 51.0 19.1 48.3 18.4 33.3 39.6 24.6 9.3

13.6

8.6

4.3

9.7 14.2

0.0

20.0 22.6 11.4 8.6 7.3 2.1 2.6

14.6 5.9 18.9 26.2 30.5 25.7 36.8 23.6 23.3 21.5 11.5 28.4 21.8 11.0 1.6 12.4 23.1 12.8 15.0 26.6 6.9 3.0 4.2 6.4 4.5 3.9 3.9 11.1 2.9 4.1 5.0 2.7 0.8 2.9 0.0

10.8

7.6

8.0 12.8

8.6

3.3

5.1

2.8

8.0

3.1

5.8 12.2

4.0 11.5 2.3 3.0 1.8 0.7 5.9 3.0 2.5 2.5

1.6 5.4 3.8 0.8 0.6

2.3 5.2 1.4 2.2 3.9

6.7 12.9 3.6 3.1 3.6 4.5 7.8 5.3 3.7 2.2

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. Figures in bold indicate the top 5 priorities. Figures that are underlined indicate the bottom 5 priorities.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

33

China, Hong Kong and South Korea were similar to Singaporeans in identifying “having a comfortable home” as the second most important priority. The Japanese were more family-oriented and identified “spending time with family” as their second priority in life, while the Taiwanese were more concerned with “being able to live without fear of crime” and the Vietnamese were more concerned with “having a job” as their second priority in life. People in China, Japan and Vietnam shared “having enough to eat” as their third top priority in life. This was not surprising for China and Vietnam as these were the only two emerging countries among the six East Asian countries compared, but in the case of Japan, this concern could be due to the general high standard and cost of living. China is the only country among the six to have “having access to good medical care” as the top fourth priority in life, while consistent with the well-known collectivistic nature of their society, the Japanese were the only people among all surveyed (including Singaporeans) who valued “being on good terms with others” as their fourth top priority in life. South Koreans identified “spending time with family” as their fourth top priority while that for the Vietnamese was “having a comfortable home”. It was counter-intuitive to note that only people in China and South Korea identified “raising children” as their top fifth priority, something which even pro-family Singaporeans do not ascribe to. Interestingly, Singaporeans accorded less importance to priorities that seemed to promote a temporal sense of personal wellbeing that is based on outward appearances or the approval of others such as “being famous”, “winning over others”, “dressing up” and “owning lots of nice things”. This is despite the fact that Singaporeans listed wealth as the top seventh and eighth thing they most wanted in life in the 1996 and 2001 nationwide surveys (Kau et al., 2004). Singaporeans also seemed to have little or no interest in “appreciating art and culture”. These priorities (“being famous”, “winning over others”, “dressing up” and “owning lots of nice things”) collectively represent the bottom five resources and activities that Singaporeans considered important (see Table 3.1a). However, this was not the case for the six East Asian countries surveyed, where “owning lots of nice things” was not among the bottom five priorities in life for people in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Vietnam, while “appreciating art and culture” was also not among the bottom five priorities in life for people in Japan and

July 2, 2009

34

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

South Korea (see Table 3.1b). Similarly, “winning over others” was not among the bottom five priorities in life for people in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Vietnam, while South Koreans stood out as the only people who did not consider “being famous” as one of their bottom five priorities in life. Priorities that espouse more individualistic freedoms such as “freedom of expression and association” and “expressing your personality or using your talents” were not considered crucial by most Singaporean respondents (see Table 3.1a). People in the other six East Asian countries surveyed were similarly apathetic about their freedom of expression with single-digit percentages of five and less (see Table 3.1b). In terms of expressing one’s personality, the Chinese (10.8%) and South Koreans (12.8%) had slightly higher percentages but these were still low compared to the other priorities. Another priority that was not important to Singaporeans was the more societally-oriented one related to “contributing to your local community or to society” (see Table 3.1a). However, not all from the six East Asian countries shared this as their bottom priorities, especially for China, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam (see Table 3.1b). For more insights on how various demographic segments of Singaporeans viewed their priorities in life, we discuss the statistics presented in Table 3.2. While males and females shared similar top priorities, there were some differences in the rankings. More females (87% compared to 81% for males) had “being healthy” as their top priority; they also accorded more importance to “spending time with the family” (54% had this as their third priority compared to 50% of males who selected this as their fourth priority). Male respondents had their jobs higher on the priority hierarchy; 66 percent chose this as their second priority compared to 52 percent of females who indicated this as their fourth priority. The discussion for this section is focused on the samples of single and married respondents as there were very few responses from the divorced and widowed. The top five priorities in life were similar for singles and married people, but there were some significant differences in terms of percentages. More married people chose their health (86%), their homes (63%) and their family (57%) as the top three priorities. Singles were also concerned about their health as their top priority (79%). However, due to their different lifecycle stage and goals, they put more emphasis on their jobs (67% and their second priority) and are less concerned about spending time with their families (39% and their fifth priority).

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

Table 3.2

35

Priorities in Life by Demographics (Singapore) Priorities in life (Top five concerns)

1 Gender Male Female

Health (81) Health (87)

2

3

4

5

Job (66) Housing (63)

Housing (62) Family (50) Family (54) Job (52)

Diet (44) Diet (43)

Job (67)

Housing (61) Diet (41)

Health (86)

Housing (63)

Family (57)

Family (39) Diet (43)

Age 20–29 30–39

Health (76) Health (83)

Housing (62) Family (44) Job (58) Family (56)

40–49 50–59

Health (87) Health (85)

60+

Health (97)

Job (63) Housing (62) Job (62) Housing (63) Housing (75)

Diet (66)

Family (63)

Medical care (38)

Education Low

Health (85)

Housing (67) Housing (62) Family (58)

Job (59)

Family (53)

Diet (50)

Job (61)

Family (45)

Diet (41)

Job (54)

Housing (50) Diet (27)

Housing (68) Housing (62) Housing (60)

Job (62)

Diet (54)

Job (62)

Family (53)

Family (46) Diet (47)

Family (57)

Job (54)

Diet (30)

Marital status Single Health (79) Married

Medium Health (79) High

Health (86)

Income Low

Health (82)

Middle

Health (83)

High

Health (86)

Job (55)

Housing (60) Family (55) Job (62) Family (48)

Diet (39) Children (37) Diet (48) Diet (44)

(Continued )

July 2, 2009

11:59

36

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.2

(Continued )

Priorities in life (Top five concerns) 1 Religion Christian

Health (84)

Muslim

Health (80)

Buddhist

Health (85)

Hindu

Health (79)

None

Health (90)

2

Family (57) Housing (75) Housing (61) Housing (69) Housing (55)

3

4

Housing (53) Job, Family (62) Job (59)

Diet (38)

Job (68)

Family (55)

Job (54)

Family (44)

Diet (50) Family (46)

5

Medical care (27) Children (25) Diet (45) Medical care (34) Diet (32)

Parentheses are the rounded percentages of respondents who selected the respective priorities in life. The priorities are as follows: “Health” — “being healthy”; “Housing” — “having a comfortable home”; “Job” — “having a job”; “Family” — “spending time with family”; “Diet” — “having enough to eat”; “Medical care” — “having access to medical care”; “Children” — “raising children”. Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

Respondents in different age groups, had similar choices, with the exception of those aged 30–39, who selected “raising children” as their fifth choice. The different rankings of priorities reflected the evolving concerns of Singaporeans as they age. The oldest age-group (60 years and above) had “access to medical care” as one of their top five priorities, reflecting their fears about ageing and impending illnesses. More of them (66%) also had “having enough to eat” as their third priority compared to the rest who accorded it lesser or no importance. This was the fifth priority for those in their twenties, forties and fifties. Respondents in their thirties did not have this in their top five priorities; instead they were the only ones who mentioned “raising children” as a key priority. Again, this reflects their current lifecycle stage and the focus of their resources and efforts.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

37

There were also some other significant variations among the age groups. For example, the percentages for “being healthy”, the top choice for all the age groups, varied from 76 percent for those aged 20–29 years to a high of 97 percent for those aged above 60. More among those aged above 60 (63%) viewed “spending time with family” as of greater importance, compared to the younger 20–29 (44%) and older 50–59 (48%) age groups. The top five priorities in life were similar for the three educational groups (low, medium and high). Although “being healthy” was ranked first by the three groups, fewer respondents in the medium education category viewed this as their top priority in life (79%) compared to other groups (85–86%). More respondents in the low and medium income brackets considered “a comfortable home” and “having enough to eat” as key priorities, while more of those with higher incomes were more interested in spending time with their families. The top five choices of priorities in life were the same for the three household income groups (low, medium and high) with some variations in terms of the ranking of each priority. All three income groups were concerned with “being healthy” and “having a comfortable home”. However, the lower income groups placed more emphasis on having a job (62% for both lower and medium income earners), a comfortable home (68% for lower income earners and 62% for medium income earners) and having enough to eat (47% of medium income earners) while the higher income group was more concerned about health issues (86% versus 82% for low income earners and 83% for medium income earners). These findings are fairly similar to those mentioned earlier for educational levels. Comparisons were made across groups who professed different religions. “Being healthy” was the top choice by all the groups, but the percentages varied significantly from a low of 79 percent for Hindus to a high of 90 percent for those who have no religion. For those who treasured “having a comfortable home”, the Christians registered the lowest percentage (53%). The lowest priority for “spending time with family” was indicated by those with no religion (44%). When “having enough to eat” was compared, only 32 percent of those with no religion picked this item as their top fifth concern. Comparatively across these three domains, Muslims had the highest percentages being most concerned with having a comfortable home (75%), spending time with their families (62%), and having enough to eat (50%).

July 2, 2009

11:59

38

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Top Worries Corresponding to Singaporean’s priorities in life, we asked questions about issues that caused them great worry. The frequencies presented in Table 3.3a Table 3.3a

Issues of Great Worry (Singapore)

Issues 1. Unemployment 2. Terrorism 3. Health issues 4. Natural disasters 5. Wars and conflicts 6. Crime 7. Poverty 8. Nuclear disasters 9. Economic problems in my country 10. Illegal drugs and drug addiction 11. Corruption 12. Global recession 13. Economic inequality in my society 14. Education 15. Environmental destruction/pollution problems relating to natural resources 16. The aging of society 17. Moral decline/spiritual decadence 18. Lack of democracy 19. Human rights 20. Globalization of human economic activities 21. Religious fundamentalism 22. The fast pace of change/technology is advancing too quickly 23. The social welfare system in my country 24. The decline in birth rate 25. Refugee and asylum problems 26. Overpopulation 27. The threat of corporate power dominates human activities 28. Fair world trade 29. Ethics of scientists Figures in bold indicate top five worries.

Percentages 70.3 67.6 61.5 56.7 55.0 51.1 41.9 36.1 33.5 33.5 33.0 29.6 27.8 25.0 24.3 24.1 16.6 14.7 13.5 13.5 11.6 9.8 9.0 8.3 8.3 8.0 7.3 4.7 4.5

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

39

show how often a particular issue was chosen and regarded by the respondents as worrisome. In selecting the top five issues, Singaporeans were most worried about “Unemployment” (70.3%), followed by worries about “Terrorism” (67.6%), “Health Issues” (61.5%), “Natural Disasters” (56.7%) and “Wars and Conflicts” (55.0%). The ranking for “Unemployment” and “Health” more or less mirrored the priorities that Singaporeans placed on their personal wellbeing (recall that “being healthy” was number one, and “having a job” was number three on Singaporeans’ list of priorities in life). It was interesting to note that natural disasters were among the top issues of worry for Singaporeans. Compared to other East Asian countries who have experienced various natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons and cyclones, Singapore has been fortunate to be spared many of these calamities. The security fears (terrorism, wars and conflicts) are perhaps more imminent. Comparisons of top worries across the six East Asian countries revealed differences in responses between Singapore and these countries. Only people in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan shared Singaporeans’ choice of “Unemployment” as the top issue of worry, while those in China and Vietnam chose “Poverty”. Japan is the only country that indicated “Natural Disasters” as a top issue of worry (see Table 3.3b). Singapore is the only country that identified “Terrorism” as a second top issue (or even one of the top issues) of worry. As far as the second top issue of worry was concerned, it can be seen that there were great differences in attitude among the six countries. People in China and South Korea were concerned with “Health Issues”, while those in Hong Kong focused on “Poverty”. The Japanese were concerned about “Crime”, while people in Taiwan and Vietnam were concerned with livelihood matters as in “Economic problems in my country” and “Unemployment” respectively. Unlike people in Singapore who viewed “Health Issues” as the third top issue of worry, “Natural Disasters” occupied this position in the minds of people in China and Vietnam. People in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan were alike in identifying matters relating to their livelihood such as “Economic problems in my country” and “Poverty” as their third most concern. Japan is the only country where its people identified “Environmental destruction/pollution problems” as a third top issue of worry. Similar to Singaporeans, people in Hong Kong viewed “Natural Disasters” as their fourth top issue of worry,

July 2, 2009

11:59

40

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.3b

Issues of Great Worry (Six East Asian Countries) Percentages

Issues of worry

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

1. Unemployment 43.6 56.5 33.2 54.8 56.9 64.7 2. Terrorism 25.4 24.5 42.4 11.0 21.7 35.9 3. Health issues 52.6 32.3 45.4 50.5 25.4 59.5 4. Natural disasters 50.0 35.7 52.1 20.9 40.4 63.2 5. Wars and conflicts 29.0 27.4 48.5 12.7 26.5 39.9 6. Crime 37.2 13.8 51.4 23.9 43.6 53.2 7. Poverty 65.8 52.9 21.5 36.5 46.5 77.8 8. Nuclear disasters 14.9 9.2 20.2 8.8 12.1 21.3 9. Economic problems in my country 13.6 35.7 51.0 38.8 47.7 15.7 10. Illegal drugs and drug addiction 38.6 12.8 27.1 6.1 19.7 58.8 11. Corruption 43.1 8.2 12.9 15.6 28.2 NA 12. Global recession 6.9 17.4 14.9 11.8 32.5 13.7 13. Economic inequality in my society 38.5 19.9 23.1 30.3 31.2 25.4 14. Education 25.3 24.7 31.0 34.8 32.7 35.2 15. Environmental destruction/ 38.0 36.7 51.0 24.1 23.7 38.6 pollution problems relating to natural resources 16. The aging of society 10.7 13.2 34.2 21.1 17.1 7.5 17. Moral decline/spiritual decadence 23.8 14.2 45.7 28.3 24.8 52.6 18. Lack of democracy 8.4 8.0 8.9 2.0 9.8 NA 19. Human rights 29.0 9.4 15.2 6.7 11.3 NA 20. Globalization of human economic 3.9 8.1 4.0 6.9 10.6 4.8 activities 21. Religious fundamentalism 6.3 4.5 7.2 2.7 3.6 4.6 22. The fast pace of change/technology 3.0 2.3 6.8 2.9 2.7 3.7 is advancing too quickly 23. The social welfare system in my 21.4 5.0 33.6 21.3 9.5 8.8 country 24. The decline in birth rate 2.1 5.2 39.6 19.5 8.9 7.6 25. Refugee and asylum problems 7.8 3.1 10.9 1.4 4.3 NA 26. Overpopulation 14.0 5.8 4.3 0.8 2.7 25.7 27. The threat of corporate power 5.0 3.1 7.4 4.3 4.7 8.8 dominates human activities 28. Fair world trade 2.9 6.6 3.7 2.7 4.4 6.3 29. Ethics of scientists 8.2 2.8 4.0 1.8 4.4 9.6 Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. Figures in bold indicate top five worries.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

41

while the rest of the countries varied in their responses: China — “Unemployment”, Japan — “Wars and Conflicts”, South Korea — “Poverty”, Taiwan — “Crime” and Vietnam — “Health Issues”. Singaporeans placed “Wars and Conflicts” as their fifth top issue of worry, and this together with their second top concern about “Terrorism” reflected the vulnerability of a small country, both in terms of economic and physical size. It is interesting to note that the top fifth issue of worry for China was “Corruption” and it is the only country among all countries surveyed to have this as one of their top issues of worry. For the people in Hong Kong, the fifth top issue of worry was “Health Issues” while that for Taiwan was “Natural Disasters”. Note that Japan is the only country whereby its people indicated “Moral Decline” as the fifth top issue (or even one of the top issues) of worry, South Korea is the only country which indicated “Education” as the fifth top issue (or even one of the top issues) of worry, Vietnam is the only country which indicated “Illegal drugs and drug addiction” as the fifth top issue (or even one of the top issues) of worry. The different ordering of the responses to worrisome issues seemed to reflect the differences in the economic, political and social developments and challenges of the countries surveyed (including Singapore). The results of an in-depth analysis of how various demographic segments of Singaporeans looked at issues that caused them great worry are summarized in Table 3.3c. Both male and female respondents were equally worried about being unemployed, despite the fact that their top priority was listed as health. Health in fact was the second top worry for females but third for males. For males, their second top worry was about terrorism, while this was third for females. Wars and conflicts followed by natural disasters were top fourth and fifth worries for males and vice versa for females. It is interesting to note that regardless of marital status, Singaporeans viewed unemployment and terrorism as the top first and second issues that caused them great worry. However, health was the third top issue that married Singaporeans worried about, while to single Singaporeans this was only their top fifth issue to be worried about, their third being wars and terrorism. This pattern of concern could be explained by the fact that married Singaporeans were more concerned about staying healthy either because they have parental responsibilities or are in the process of trying to achieve parenthood. In terms of age group differences, younger Singaporeans aged

11:59

Top five worries 1

3

4

5

Wars and conflicts (54) Natural disasters (60)

Natural disasters (53) Wars and conflicts (56)

Unemployment (74) Unemployment (70)

Terrorism (72) Terrorism (66)

Wars and conflicts (61) Health (63)

Natural disasters (61) Natural disasters (55)

Health (58) Wars and conflicts (52)

Terrorism (73) Terrorism (70) Unemployment (74) Unemployment (69) Health (73)

Unemployment (72) Unemployment (69) Terrorism (66) Health (69) Terrorism (62)

Natural disasters (64) Health (62) Health (60) Terrorism (63) Unemployment (60)

Wars and conflicts (62) Natural disasters (58) Crime (53) Wars and conflicts (56) Natural disasters (58)

Health (53) Wars and conflicts (54) Natural disasters (53) Natural disasters (52) Crime (58)

Unemployment (71) Unemployment (74) Terrorism (64)

Terrorism (66) Terrorism (74) Health (64)

Health (63) Wars and conflicts (66) Unemployment (62)

Natural disasters (57) Natural disasters (57) Natural disasters (56)

Crime (53) Health (56) Wars and conflicts (52)

Unemployment (70) Unemployment (75) Terrorism (71)

Terrorism (65) Terrorism (67) Unemployment (67)

Health (62) Health (61) Health (62)

Natural disasters (58) Natural disasters (58) Wars and conflicts (56)

Wars and conflicts (55) Wars and conflicts (55) Natural disasters (55)

Unemployment (70) Terrorism (69)

Terrorism (65) Unemployment (68)

Health (62) Crime (61)

Natural disasters (57) Health (56)

Buddhist Hindu

Unemployment (73) Unemployment (76)

Health (66) Terrorism (75)

Terrorism (63) Health (61)

Wars and conflicts (59) Wars and conflicts (59) Natural disasters (59) Natural disasters (55) Natural disasters (60)

None

Terrorism (78)

Unemployment (63)

Wars and conflicts (60)

Health (57)

Parentheses are the rounded percentages of respondents who selected the respective worries.

Wars and conflicts (52) Wars and conflicts (50) Crime (50) Natural disasters (56)

b773-ch03

Health (55) Terrorism (66)

B-773

Terrorism (69.3) Health (67)

9in x 6in

Unemployment (72) Unemployment (69)

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Gender Male Female Marital status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Christian Muslim

2

July 2, 2009

42

Table 3.3c Top Five Worries by Demographics (Singapore)

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

43

below forty worried most about terrorism while middle-aged Singaporeans (in their forties and fifties) worried most about unemployment. The latter response is not surprising as similar to most NICs, Singapore is experiencing a phase of structural shifts in employment whereby middle-aged workers who are less technologically inclined or skilled faced higher risk of retrenchment or remained unemployed. Meanwhile, senior Singaporeans (aged 60 years and above) are most worried about health issues, naturally so because of ageing and the world-wide trend of rising medical and healthcare costs. This response ties in with their top first priority in life about health and top fifth priority about medical care. Interestingly, senior Singaporeans were the only age group to mention crime as the top (fifth) issue of worry, perhaps reflecting their concern about the inability to safeguard themselves in view of their weakened or declining health. The top issue that caused Singaporeans with low and medium education great worry is unemployment, which is not surprising since education empowers one to be more employable in a meritocratic society like Singapore. The close correlation between education and income is evident in how both low and middle income Singaporeans also viewed unemployment as the top worrisome issue. Singaporeans with high education and high income had terrorism as the top issue they worried about, which is a more macro-level issue. Interestingly, only lowly educated Singaporeans mentioned that they were worried about crime, similar to what senior Singaporeans (aged 60 years and above) felt. As far as religious groups are concerned, Singaporeans who are Christian, Buddhist or Hindu all viewed unemployment as the top issue that they were worried about, whereas Singaporean Muslims and those with no religion were worried most about terrorism. Singaporean Muslims were the only group who raised crime as a top (fifth) issue of worry. Views on Government Spending Arising from people’s concerns about various issues close to their hearts, we asked if they would like their respective governments to increase spending to alleviate some of these worries and concerns. Table 3.4a lists the Singapore respondents’ views on government spending in various areas. Based on their

July 2, 2009

11:59

44

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.4a Views on Government Spending (Singapore)

Areas 1. The environment 2. Health 3. Policing and law enforcement 4. Education 5. The military and defence 6. Old-age pensions 7. Unemployment benefits 8. Public transport, telecommunications infrastructure 9. Culture and the arts 10. Improvement of the social status of women

Spend much more 1%

Spend Spend Spend the same Spend much more as now less less 2% 3% 4% 5% Mean

8.3 36.6 6.6

28.1 43.9 25.5

57.2 18.8 63.5

6.0 0.8 3.8

0.4 0.1 0.5

2.62 1.84 2.66

31.1 9.5 37.1 34.3 21.4

40.2 24.3 37.5 36.0 27.6

27.2 57.9 22.5 24.9 41.0

1.3 7.6 2.7 4.3 8.5

0.3 0.6 0.2 0.6 1.5

2.00 2.65 1.91 2.01 2.41

3.9 12.0

17.8 25.3

58.8 52.4

15.3 8.5

4.2 1.8

2.98 2.63

Bold figures indicate top five areas.

responses ranging from 1 for “spend much more” to 5 for “spend much less”, the mean values in Table 3.4a confirmed that the government spending priorities should be first on health (1.84), followed by old-age pensions (1.91), education (2.00) and unemployment benefits (2.01). If the responses of “spend much more” and “spend more” were summed up, about 80 percent of the Singaporeans wanted their government to spend more on health. This was followed by old-age pensions (74.6%), education (71.3%), and unemployment benefits (70.3%). The rest of the concerns received much lower priorities — the public transportation and telecom infrastructure (49%), the improvement of social status of women (37.3%), the environment (36.4%), the military and defence (33.8%) and culture and the arts (21.7%). When Tables 3.3a and 3.4a are compared, it is interesting to note that 70.3 percent of Singaporeans chose unemployment as their top worry, and exactly the same percentage also wanted the government to channel

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

45

spending to this area. On the other hand, while three out of five (or 61.5%) of the respondents selected health issues as their third top worry, about four out of five Singaporeans (or 80.5%) wanted the government to spend money in this area. The other top concerns of Singaporeans were terrorism (ranked second with 67.6%), natural disasters (ranked fourth with 56.7%) and wars and conflicts (ranked fifth with 55%), but wishes for more government spending to deal with these issues received lower priority. For instance, only 33.8 percent of the respondents wanted the government to spend more on the military and defence and 32.1 percent expressed the necessity to spend more on policing and law enforcement. Finally, it is noted that only 21.7 percent of the respondents wanted government to spend more on culture and the arts, the lowest amongst all the areas under consideration. Views on Government Spending by Demographics Table 3.4b examines the different views towards government spending on various areas by certain demographic segments. In general, the differences among various demographic groups were observed to be larger across different age groups, levels of education and income, and religions, but smaller across gender and marital status. When spending on health was concerned, there was virtually no difference observed between male and female respondents who advocated more or much more government spending (80.5% versus 80.4%) and between those who were single and married (80.6% versus 79.9%). However, differences were noted among the various age groups with the older groups (aged 50 years and above) supporting more government spending. For instance, 85.7 percent of those aged 60 years and above wanted government to spend more but only 78.2 percent of those in the age group of 20–29 years felt the same way. When their levels of education were considered, the differences were also very small, ranging from 78.9 percent for those with medium education to 81.3 percent for those with low education. In terms of income, whereas only 75.3 percent of those with high income bracket wanted more government spending on health, about 82.2 percent to 83.7 percent of those with lower or middle expressed the same view.

July 2, 2009

11:59

46

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.4b Top Five Areas of Desired Government Spending by Demographics (Singapore) Percentage who responded

(a) Health Entire sample Gender Male Female Marital status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

Spend much more (1)

Spend more (2)

Spend the same as now (3)

Spend less (4)

36.6

43.9

18.8

0.8

0.1

1.84

38.9 34.6

41.6 45.8

18.7 18.8

0.8 0.7

0.0 0.0

2.00 1.86

33.8 37.0

46.8 42.9

19.0 19.2

0.4 1.0

0.0 0.0

1.86 1.84

28.7 39.2 38.8 38.4 34.3

49.5 41.0 40.9 44.1 51.4

20.8 19.4 19.2 16.9 12.9

1.0 0.4 1.0 0.6 1.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.94 1.81 1.82 1.80 1.81

37.9 37.2 31.4

43.4 41.7 48.4

17.9 20.1 19.1

0.9 0.4 1.1

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.82 1.84 1.90

38.7 39.5 31.3

43.5 44.2 44.0

16.6 15.5 24.2

1.1 0.8 0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0

1.80 1.78 1.94

31.0 37.4 37.4 47.8 32.6

44.0 46.4 43.9 37.0 43.9

35.0 15.8 17.4 15.2 22.0

0.0 0.5 1.3 0.0 1.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.94 1.79 1.83 1.67 1.92

Spend much less (5)

Mean

(Continued )

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

Table 3.4b

47

(Continued )

Percentage who responded Spend much more (1) (b) Old-age pensions Entire sample 37.1 Gender Male 37.1 Female 37.1 Marital status Single 38.4 Married 36.3 Age 20–29 36.8 30–39 38.1 40–49 38.4 50–59 36.2 60+ 30.0 Education Low 40.3 Medium 39.1 High 24.2 Income Low 43.8 Middle 39.7 High 28.7 Religion Christian 28.6 Muslim 44.5 Buddhist 37.7 Hindu 37.8 None 35.9

Spend more (2)

Spend the same as now (3)

Spend less (4)

Spend much less (5) Mean

37.5

22.5

2.7

0.2

1.91

35.8 38.9

23.8 21.4

3.0 2.4

0.2 0.2

1.93 1.90

34.6 38.3

23.2 22.7

3.4 2.6

0.4 0.1

1.93 1.92

33.3 37.4 40.5 33.3 48.5

26.4 23.1 18.0 26.4 18.2

3.0 1.5 3.1 3.4 3.0

0.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0

1.97 1.88 1.86 1.99 1.94

34.7 36.7 47.3

21.8 20.6 27.5

3.0 3.2 1.1

0.2 0.4 0.0

1.88 1.89 2.05

32.2 34.4 45.0

21.0 22.7 23.6

2.6 3.2 2.4

0.4 0.0 0.3

1.84 1.89 2.01

45.2 33.5 38.5 36.7 28.1

25.0 18.8 21.4 22.2 29.7

1.2 3.2 2.3 3.3 4.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6

1.99 1.81 1.88 1.91 2.08

(Continued )

July 2, 2009

48

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.4b

(Continued )

Percentage who responded

(c) Education Entire sample Gender Male Female Marital status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

Spend much more (1)

Spend more (2)

Spend the same as now (3)

Spend less (4)

Spend much less (5) Mean

31.1

40.2

27.2

1.3

0.3

2.00

31.6 30.6

39.5 40.8

27.6 26.8

0.8 1.6

0.4 0.2

1.99 2.00

29.5 31.3

40.9 40.0

28.4 26.9

0.8 1.5

0.4 0.3

2.02 2.00

30.5 33.0 33.0 27.7 25.7

39.9 35.8 43.6 39.0 47.1

28.1 28.7 22.7 31.1 27.1

1.5 1.8 0.3 2.3 0.1

0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0

2.00 2.01 1.91 2.08 2.01

33.3 32.4 22.5

40.7 39.7 39.0

24.6 26.7 35.8

1.4 1.2 1.1

0.0 0.0 1.6

1.94 1.97 2.20

39.2 31.4 25.1

37.4 42.0 40.5

23.4 24.8 31.7

0.0 1.3 2.4

0.0 0.5 0.3

1.84 1.98 2.12

27.4 36.9 29.8 44.1 22.7

36.3 41.0 42.4 32.3 40.9

33.9 19.8 27.0 21.5 34.8

1.2 1.8 0.8 2.2 1.5

1.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.12 1.88 1.99 1.82 2.15

(Continued )

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

Table 3.4b

49

(Continued )

Percentage who responded Spend much more (1)

Spend more (2)

(d) Unemployment benefits Entire sample 34.3 36.0 Gender Male 33.4 35.3 Female 35.1 36.5 Marital status Single 34.0 36.6 Married 33.6 35.9 Age 20–29 34.3 37.3 30–39 31.1 39.2 40–49 38.4 35.6 50–59 34.7 30.1 60+ 28.4 35.8 Education Low 39.0 35.5 Medium 32.4 37.2 High 22.0 35.7 Income Low 42.9 35.4 Middle 36.8 33.3 High 25.8 38.1 Religion Christian 27.3 32.7 Muslim 42.0 37.9 Buddhist 35.3 37.6 Hindu 42.7 33.7 None 22.8 31.5

Spend the same as now (3)

Spend less (4)

Spend much less (5) Mean

24.9

4.3

0.6

2.01

25.5 24.3

4.9 3.7

0.9 0.4

2.04 1.98

24.0 25.6

4.6 4.3

0.8 0.6

2.02 2.02

23.4 24.5 22.5 27.8 32.8

4.0 4.4 3.1 6.8 3.0

1.0 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.0

2.00 2.04 1.91 2.09 2.10

21.0 24.7 37.4

3.8 4.9 4.9

0.7 0.8 0.0

1.92 2.04 2.25

18.7 24.3 30.3

2.2 5.1 5.1

0.7 0.5 0.6

1.82 1.99 2.17

36.4 17.4 23.4 20.2 30.7

3.0 2.3 3.6 3.4 12.6

0.6 0.5 0.3 0.0 2.4

2.17 1.81 1.96 1.84 2.40

(Continued )

July 2, 2009

50

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 3.4b

(Continued )

Percentage who responded Spend much more (1)

Spend more (2)

Spend the same as now (3)

Spend less (4)

(e) Public transport and telecommunications structure Entire sample 21.4 27.6 41.0 8.5 Gender Male 20.6 29.7 39.3 8.7 Female 22.1 25.8 42.5 8.3 Marital status Single 21.9 28.7 40.4 7.2 Married 20.8 27.5 41.4 9.1 Age 20–29 22.2 26.6 41.4 6.4 30–39 21.0 29.5 39.5 8.9 40–49 21.7 26.2 41.0 9.3 50–59 21.9 27.5 40.4 10.1 60+ 18.6 28.6 47.1 5.7 Education Low 22.1 24.9 42.1 9.4 Medium 23.4 27.4 39.5 7.7 High 16.6 36.4 39.6 7.0 Income Low 27.9 22.8 40.1 6.6 Middle 20.3 28.7 38.4 11.3 High 18.1 28.8 45.4 7.1 Religion Christian 21.4 25.0 43.5 8.9 Muslim 20.4 26.2 39.4 10.0 Buddhist 22.9 27.4 42.5 7.0 Hindu 30.1 26.9 37.6 4.3 None 13.8 32.3 39.2 13.8

Spend much less (5) Mean

1.5

2.41

1.7 1.3

2.41 2.41

1.9 1.1

2.38 2.42

3.4 1.1 1.7 0.0 0.0

2.42 2.40 2.43 2.39 2.40

1.5 2.0 0.5

2.43 2.38 2.39

2.6 1.3 0.6

2.33 2.45 2.43

1.2 4.1 0.3 1.1 0.8

2.43 2.51 2.34 2.19 2.55

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

51

When religion was taken into consideration, the Christians (75%) and those with no religious affiliation (76.5%) wanted more or much more government spending on health. Generally, higher proportions of those with other faiths possessed the same view. The range was from 81.3 percent for the Buddhists to 84.8 percent for the Hindus, with 83.8 percent of the Muslims advocating more or much more spending. The differences in opinions on whether to spend more or much more on old-age pensions varied more among the different demographic groups. In total, 74.6 percent of the entire sample believed in more or much more government spending on old-age pensions. When views were sought from male and female respondents, it was noted that a higher percentage of females (76%) wanted more government spending, compared to the males (72.9%). In terms of marital status, the differences were small between the single (73%) and married respondents (74.6%). The differences were more accentuated across different age groups. About 70 percent of those aged 20–29 years felt this way compared to 78.9 percent of those aged 40–49 years and 78.5 percent of those aged 60 years or more. However, only 69.5 percent of those aged 50–59 years expressed the same view. When the level of education was considered, more respondents among those with low education (75%) and medium education (75.8%) advocated more or much more spending on old-age pensions vis-à-vis those with high education (71.5%). Similarly, slightly lower percentages of those with middle income (74.1%) and high income (73.7%) wanted more government spending compared to those with low income (76%). When the religious faith of the respondents was taken into account, it was observed that a lower percentage of those with no religion (64%) expressed such a view compared to respondents with a religious affiliation (ranging from 73.8% for Christians to 78% for Muslims). When opinions on spending on education were sought, it was found that 71.3 percent of the respondents were in favor of supporting more or much more spending on education. When such opinions were compared among groups with different demographic profiles, larger variations were observed among respondents in different age groups, levels of education, income and religious affiliation. However, only small differences were detected between males (71.1%) and females (71.4%), as well as between single respondents (70.4%) and those who were married (71.3%). Such variations were found to

July 2, 2009

52

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

be larger among people in different age groups. While 66.7 percent of those aged 50–59 years wanted more spending, the highest percentage of advocates were found among those aged 40–49 years (76.6%). The other age groups registered variations from 68.8 percent (aged 30–39 years) to 72.8 percent (aged 60 years and more). When the level of education was considered, it was noted that a lower percentage of support came from the high education group (61.5%) as compared to those with low (74%) or medium education (72.1%). Similarly, a lower proportion of those with high income (65.6%) advocated such spending compared to those with low (76.6%) or middle income (73.4%). Finally, 63.7 percent of the Christians wanted more or much more government spending on education but a higher proportion of the Muslims (77.9%) felt the same need. The rest ranged from 63.6 percent (those with no religion) to 76.4 percent (Hindus). As far as government spending on unemployment benefits was concerned, 70.3 percent of those surveyed indicated support for additional spending. Variations in support of this spending were minimal between males (68.7%) and females (71.6%), and between single (70.6%) and married respondents (69.5%). However, variations were found to be greater for people in different age groups, education levels, income and religious denominations. Smaller percentages of respondents in the older age groups (50 years and above) supported additional funding for unemployment benefits — 64.8 percent for those aged 50–59 years and 64.2 percent for those aged 60 years and above. The largest percentage of support came from those aged 40–49 years (74.0%) as this group most likely felt the need more acutely than the rest of the respondents. When differences were examined across groups with different education and income level, it was noted that smaller percentages of those with high education (57.7%) or high income (63.9%) favored additional spending on unemployment benefits. The range for the other education groups was from 69.6 percent (medium education) to 74.5 percent (low education). Similarly, about 70 percent of those with middle income supported additional spending but as much as 78 percent of those with low income expressed the same view. When religious affiliation was taken into consideration, it was found that both Christians (60%) and those with no religion (54.3%) were among the groups with the lowest support for such a move, as compared to 76.4 percent of Hindus and almost 80 percent of Muslims.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Priorities in Life,Top Worries and Views on Government Spending

b773-ch03

53

The fifth area where government spending was deemed a priority was that related to public transport and telecommunications structure. Of those surveyed, 49 percent expressed the need for more or much more spending in this area compared to the previous four areas discussed (health, oldage pension, education and unemployment benefits) which had at least 70 percent support. A marginally higher percentage of support came from male respondents (50.3%) as compared to their female counterparts (47.9%). A similar small dispersion was also detected between the singles (50.6%) and married respondents (48.3%). In terms of age groups, no clear pattern was observed and the range was from 47.2 percent (aged 60 years and above) to 50.5 percent (aged 30–39 years). Bigger variations were noted among people from different education levels. The range was from 47 percent (low education) to 50.8 percent (medium education) and 53 percent (high education). However, when income was considered, the lowest support came from the high income groups (46.9%) while both middle income (49%) and low income (50.7%) showed greater support. When the respondents’ religious faith was considered, the Hindus registered the highest percentage of support for additional spending. About 57 percent of them were supportive compared to the range of 46.1 percent (for those with no religion) to 50.3 percent (for the Buddhists).

Chapter Summary The top five priorities in life that Singaporeans chose (“Being healthy”, “Having a comfortable home”, “Having a job”, “Spending time with family”, and “Having enough to eat”) reflect the importance Singaporeans place on their personal wellbeing and by extension, the wellbeing of their families. When compared across six other East Asian countries, Hong Kong is the only country where its people shared the same set of priorities as Singaporeans. Unlike the case of Singapore, “Raising children” (China and South Korea), “Being on good terms with others” ( Japan), and “Earning a high income” (South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam) were issues that occupied the top positions for the other six countries. Demographically, our analysis shows that as far as the top priority is concerned, there was no difference in ranking across gender, marital status, age, education, income and religion.

July 2, 2009

54

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch03

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

However, for the second to fifth priorities, ranking of these priorities may vary especially across gender, marital status, age, and religion. The top five issues that Singaporeans worry about are “Unemployment”, “Terrorism”, “Health Issues”, “Natural Disasters” and “Wars and Conflicts”. While the ranking for “Unemployment” and “Health” more or less emphasized the importance that Singaporeans place on their economic wellbeing, the rankings for natural disasters and security (terrorism, wars and conflicts) reflect their concern about physical wellbeing. These threats may also have an indirect bearing on one’s economic wellbeing because they may cause disruptions to the Singapore economy. Singaporeans seemed to be more concerned about issues that their personal actions may have some influence, while they rely on the government and other agencies to respond to the worries that have an impact on the society at large. Again, there were differences in responses between Singapore and the other six East Asian countries. One notable difference was Japan, the only country which identified “Environmental destruction/pollution problems” as a third top issue of worry. It is interesting to note that issues like “Corruption” (China), “Moral decline” ( Japan), “Education” (South Korea), “Illegal drugs and drug addiction” (Vietnam) were not among the top issues of worry for Singapore. The attention to different concerns highlight the varied problems and issues East Asian countries faced as their economies and societies evolve in their unique ways. Demographically, there are differences among Singaporeans’ ranking of top five issues of worry across gender, age, and religion. The variations in support for additional government spending in the various areas were found to be greater across demographic groups, most notably in terms of age, education, income and religious affiliation. Differences were found to be minimal for gender and marital status. Those with fewer financial resources (e.g., lower levels of education and income) wished for more government spending in old-age pensions, education, unemployment benefits, and the infrastructure. Ironically, those with higher levels of education and incomes felt that the government need not spend as much on education.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

4 Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In the chapter, we assessed the wellbeing of Singaporeans in terms of various self-reported measures on more affective aspects of the quality of life. In addition to more cognitive measures on satisfaction reported in the previous chapter, Singaporeans were asked to evaluate how happy they were, whether they were enjoying life, and if they felt they had achieved what they wanted in life. A composite score of the overall quality of life was also computed by aggregating the responses on the three dimensions of happiness, enjoyment and achievement. As shown in the “Singapore” row of Table 4.1a, in terms of happiness, more than a quarter of Singaporeans (27.5%) reported being “very happy” and slightly more than half (51.1%) reported being “quite happy”. These two percentages add up to an overwhelming 78.6 percent of Singaporeans expressing contentment with their lot in life. We computed a Happiness Index by subtracting the percentages reported for “Not too happy” and “Very unhappy” from the percentages reported for “Very happy” and “Quite happy.” Overall, Singaporeans appeared to be the happiest of the lot, with the highest Happiness Index showing +72.5 percent of people reporting that they are happy (see first row, last column of Table 4.1a). Compared to Singaporeans, people in Taiwan seemed to be the least happy among the seven countries surveyed, reporting the lowest index of only +30.6 percent (see Table 4.1a). Correspondingly, as shown in the “Singapore” row of Table 4.1b, Singaporeans seemed to be enjoying life with an aggregate of 88.5 percent 55

July 2, 2009

11:59

56

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 4.1a

Level of Happiness

Very Quite Neither Not too Very happy happy happy nor happy unhappy Balanced (a) (b) unhappy (c) (d) (a + b) − (c + d) Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

27.5 18.9 6.6 15.4 11.9 16.4 38.4

51.1 39.0 44.0 44.3 44.2 33.6 27.3

15.4 35.7 46.1 34.6 29.8 40.4 32.6

Table 4.1b

Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

5.2 4.7 2.2 4.8 12.7 7.2 1.6

0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.1 2.2 0.1

+72.5 +52.1 +47.4 +54.0 +42.3 +30.6 +64.0

Levels of Enjoyment

Often (a)

Sometimes (b)

Rarely (c)

34.3 22.6 16.9 19.6 16.9 12.8 50.6

54.2 51.7 45.4 59.5 51.8 48.3 44.4

10.0 21.6 31.9 19.2 27.9 34.1 4.1

Never Balanced (d) (a + b) − (c + d) 1.5 4.0 5.6 1.2 3.0 3.9 0.7

+77.0 +48.7 +24.8 +58.7 +37.8 +23.1 +90.2

saying they are enjoying life “often” (34.3%) and “sometimes” (54.2%). We also computed an Enjoyment Index by subtracting the percentages reported for “Never” and “Rarely” from those reported for “Often” and “Sometimes.” However, the highest overall Enjoyment Index was reported by people from Vietnam (+90.2%) although unlike Singaporeans they were not the happiest people around. Not surprisingly, people in Taiwan who were the least happy also reported the lowest index in terms of enjoying life (+23.1%). In contrast to the glowing statistics on happiness and enjoyment, only 16.9 percent of Singaporeans reported feeling they have accomplished

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

Table 4.1c

57

Levels of Achievement

A great deal Some Very little None Balanced (a) (b) (c) (d) (a + b) − (c + d) Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

16.9 7.0 7.3 6.3 3.6 4.5 15.6

59.1 55.4 48.4 59.3 46.3 48.6 54.4

20.7 29.5 38.7 29.3 45.1 39.0 28.6

3.2 8.0 5.5 3.2 4.4 7.3 1.2

+52.1 +24.9 +11.5 +33.1 +0.4 +6.8 +40.2

“a great deal” in their lives (see “Singapore” row in Table 4.1c). Combined with the 59.1 percent who reported “some” accomplishment, the top two response categories for this scale item garnered 76 percent. At least one in five (20.7%) felt they were achieving “very little”. This may seem slightly paradoxical that Singaporeans are happy and enjoy their lives although they feel they are not achieving very much. Nevertheless, in terms of the Achievement Index (derived from subtracting the percentages reported for “none” and “very little” from the percentage reported for “a great deal” and “some”), Singaporeans still came out on top of the achievement ratings with the highest index of +52.1 percent. The lowest index belonged to South Korea, who had almost equal percentages of people who felt that they had achieved “some” (46.3%) versus those who felt that they had achieved “very little” (45.1%).

Levels of Happiness by Demographic Groups Table 4.2a shows the different levels of happiness experienced by Singapore’s various demographic groups. Overall, about four out of five respondents (or 78.6%) felt quite happy or very happy about life. Females were happier than males although the differences were not significant. Almost 80 percent (79.5%) of the females felt quite happy or very happy, as compared to 77 percent of their male counterparts. The percentage of those who were quite happy or very happy over those who felt not too happy or very

Singaporeans’ Levels of Happiness by Demographic Groups Mean

Entire sample

27.5

51.1

15.4

5.2

0.9

+72.5

2.01

Gender Male Female

24.6 29.8

52.6 49.7

16.8 14.2

5.1 5.3

0.8 0.9

+71.3 +73.3

2.05 1.98

Marital Status Single Married

20.6 30.5

55.1 50.6

18.4 13.7

4.5 4.7

1.5 0.6

+69.7 +75.8

2.11 1.94

Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+

26.0 28.1 29.3 25.7 26.0

53.9 53.1 44.9 53.1 54.8

14.7 13.5 19.4 14.5 11.0

3.9 4.9 5.8 5.6 6.8

1.5 0.3 0.7 1.1 1.4

+74.5 +76.0 +67.7 +72.1 +72.6

2.01 1.96 2.04 2.03 2.03

Education Low Medium High

28.0 26.6 27.0

49.2 52.4 55.0

16.4 14.3 13.8

5.5 5.6 3.7

0.8 1.2 0.5

+70.9 +72.2 +77.8

2.02 2.02 1.96

Income Low Middle High

21.5 31.9 27.6

50.2 51.0 51.5

20.1 11.3 16.6

6.1 5.5 3.8

2.2 0.3 0.6

+63.4 +77.1 +74.7

2.17 1.91 1.98

Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

26.0 39.6 23.3 29.0 21.1

54.3 45.9 53.1 50.5 49.6

13.9 9.9 17.1 12.9 22.6

4.0 4.5 5.7 5.4 6.0

1.7 0 0.7 2.2 0.8

+75.6 +81.0 +70.0 +71.9 +63.9

2.01 1.79 2.07 2.01 2.16

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

b773-ch04

Balanced (a + b) − (c + d)

B-773

Very unhappy (d)

9in x 6in

Not too happy (c)

11:59

Neither happy nor unhappy

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Quite happy (b)

58

Very happy (a)

July 2, 2009

Table 4.2a

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

b773-ch04

59

unhappy differed only marginally between males and females (71.3% versus 73.3%). Married people felt happier about life than their single counterparts. About four out of five (81.1%) of them felt quite or very happy, as compared to 75.7 percent for the singles. The difference between the level of happiness (very happy and quite happy) and unhappiness (not too happy or very unhappy) for the two groups (69.7% for singles versus 75.8% for married) clearly supported such an observation. When levels of happiness were compared over age groups, it was noted that those aged 40–49 years reported a lower level of happiness. About 74.2 percent of them felt very happy or quite happy, as compared to the next group (78.8% for those aged 50–59 years) and the group with the highest percentage (81.2% for those aged 30–39 years). This could be due to the observation that the middle aged group (40–49 years) faced more life pressures as a result of concerns about their job security, their children’s education, the rising costs of living and so on. The better educated generally felt happier compared to those with lower educational achievement. For instance, about 82 percent of the people with high education felt happy as compared to those with medium education (79%) and those with low education (77.2%). The difference between happiness and unhappiness levels was more evident among those with low education (70.9% compared to 72.2% for those with medium education and 77.8% for those with high education). When the levels of happiness were compared over different income groups, it was interesting to find that those earning middle incomes were the happiest among the three groups analyzed. About 82.9 percent of them felt quite or very happy compared to 71.7 percent of those with low income and 79.1 percent of those with high income. The low income group also reported the biggest difference between happiness and unhappiness among the three groups (63.4% versus 77.1% for medium income and 74.7% for high income). In terms of religion, those without any religion experienced a lower level of happiness when compared to those who possessed a faith. Only 70.7 percent of them expressed happiness as compared to the next group (Buddhists with 76.4%) and the happiest group (Muslim with 85.5%). The Christians and Hindus had almost the same level of happiness (80.3% and

July 2, 2009

60

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

79.5% respectively). The same differences were also observed in the difference between the levels of happiness and unhappiness. It was noted that almost 40 percent of the Muslims (39.6%) felt very happy about life, a figure significantly higher than the other four religious groups (ranging from 21.1% to 29%). Generally, it was noted that across different demographic groups, the percentages of people who were happy were much higher than the people who were not too happy or very unhappy, as reflected by the numbers in the “Balanced” column of Table 4.2a. The percentages ranged from a low of 63.4 percent (for those with low income) to a high of 81 percent (for those who were Muslims), thus indicating that Singaporeans were mostly very happy or quite happy about life.

Levels of Enjoyment by Demographic Groups Table 4.2b shows how Singaporeans felt when they were asked if they were enjoying life these days. The answers varied from “often”, “sometimes”, “rarely” to “never”. Overall, almost nine out of ten respondents (or 88.5%) replied that they enjoyed life sometimes or often. Males and females reported similar percentages of enjoyment with life, and the same was noted for those who are married or single. The youngest group (20–29 years) experienced the greatest level of enjoyment with 91.2 percent, followed closely by the oldest group (aged 60 years and over) with 90.4 percent. This oldest age group also reported the highest percentage of people enjoying life often. Over 41 percent of them enjoyed life often as compared to other age groups (percentages ranged from 31.4% to 36.3%). The level of life enjoyment appeared to vary more among those with different levels of education. About 95 percent of those with high education agreed that they enjoyed life often or sometimes, compared to 90.9 percent of those with middle education and 85.5 percent of those with low education. The highly educated group also reported the highest percentage of people who enjoyed life often (40.7% as compared to 32% for low education and 34.9% for medium education). Similarly, people who reported earning middle or high income also enjoyed life more (92.4% and 92.1% respectively), as compared to those with low income (79.4%).

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

Table 4.2b

61

Singaporeans’ Levels of Enjoyment by Demographic Groups Often Sometimes Rarely Never Balanced (a) (b) (c) (d) (a + b) − (c + d) Mean

Entire sample Gender Male Female Marital Status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

34.3

54.2

10.0

1.5

+77.0

1.79

32.7 35.7

56.1 52.5

8.9 10.9

2.3 0.9

+77.6 +76.4

1.81 1.77

31.2 36.3

57.5 53.3

8.6 9.7

2.6 0.7

+77.5 +79.2

1.83 1.75

36.3 34.4 31.4 34.1 41.1

54.9 55.2 54.9 52.3 49.3

8.3 10.1 11.6 10.2 6.8

0.5 0.3 2.0 3.4 2.7

+82.4 +79.2 +72.7 +72.8 +80.9

1.73 1.76 1.84 1.83 1.71

32.0 34.9 40.7

53.5 56.0 54.0

12.1 8.3 5.3

2.4 0.8 0.0

+61.0 +81.8 +89.4

1.85 1.75 1.65

26.0 39.5 36.3

53.4 52.9 55.8

17.0 6.6 7.3

3.6 1.1 0.6

+58.8 +84.7 +84.2

1.98 1.69 1.72

41.3 39.6 30.3 37.6 27.8

50.6 49.5 56.8 49.5 60.9

5.8 9.9 11.0 12.9 9.8

2.3 0.9 2.0 0 1.5

+83.8 +78.3 +74.1 +73.2 +77.4

1.69 1.72 1.85 1.75 1.85

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

In terms of religion, a higher percentage of the Christians appeared to enjoy life more compared to those who professed no faith or of other faiths. Almost 92 percent of the Christians felt they had enjoyed life sometimes or often, as compared to 89.1 percent of the Muslims, 88.7 percent

July 2, 2009

62

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

of the free thinkers, and 87.1 percent respectively for the Buddhists and Hindus. The Christians (41.3%) and Muslims (39.6%) also reported higher percentages of them enjoying life often compared to Buddhists (30.3%) and those with no religion (27.8%). We note that irrespective of demographics, the percentages of people who enjoyed life often or sometimes were much higher than those who believed they rarely or never enjoyed life. The percentages varied from a low of 58.8 percent (for low income earners) to a high of 89.4 percent (for those with high education). Levels of Achievement by Demographic Groups Table 4.2c reveals the levels of achievement as expressed by Singaporeans from different demographic backgrounds. They were asked the question “how much do you feel you are accomplishing what you want out of your life?” The answers ranged from “a great deal”, “some”, “very little” to “none”. Of the entire sample surveyed, about 17 percent felt they had achieved a great deal, 59 percent felt some accomplishment, 21 percent felt “very little” and 3 percent felt no achievement at all. A marginally higher percentage of women felt they had achieved some or a great deal in life compared to men (76.9% versus 75.1%). The level of felt achievement differed very little between singles and married people (77.7% versus 76.6%). When such comparisons were made across different age groups, it was noted that those aged 50–59 years reported the highest percentage. About 84 percent of them felt they had achieved some or a great deal, as compared to the range from 69.5 percent (aged 40–49 years) to 78.9 percent (aged 60 years and above). It was also interesting to note that the oldest group reported the highest percentage when they were asked if they had achieved a great deal. About 28 percent of them felt this way, compared to the range from 15.2 percent to 18.8 percent for the other age groups. The differential between achievement and non-achievement (38.9%) was smallest for those aged 40–49 years. When comparisons were made across respondents with different levels of education, the differences observed were much larger. About 73 percent of those with low education felt they had accomplished some or a great deal, compared to 79.2 percent for those with medium education and 82.5 percent

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

Table 4.2c

63

Singaporeans’ Levels of Achievement by Demographic Groups A great deal Some Very little None Balanced (a) (b) (c) (d) (a + b) − (c + d) Mean

Entire sample Gender Male Female Marital Status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

16.9

59.1

20.7

3.2

+52.1

2.10

15.7 18.0

59.4 58.9

22.5 19.2

2.3 3.9

+51.2 +53.8

2.11 2.09

16.2 17.2

61.5 59.4

20.0 20.4

2.3 3.1

+55.4 +53.1

2.08 2.09

15.2 15.7 15.5 18.8 28.2

60.3 62.2 54.0 64.8 50.7

23.0 19.6 26.5 11.9 16.9

1.5 2.4 4.1 4.5 4.2

+51.0 +55.9 +38.9 +67.2 +57.8

2.11 2.09 2.19 2.02 1.97

15.3 17.6 21.3

57.5 61.6 61.2

22.2 20.4 16.5

5.1 0.4 1.1

+45.5 +58.4 +64.9

2.17 2.04 1.97

10.9 16.6 21.7

54.9 59.2 62.8

25.8 22.1 15.0

8.4 2.1 0.6

+41.6 +51.6 +68.9

2.32 2.10 1.94

25.0 14.0 16.2 17.4 13.3

58.1 58.6 58.7 57.6 62.4

15.1 24.8 20.3 23.9 21.1

1.7 2.7 4.8 1.1 3.0

+66.3 +45.1 +49.8 +50.0 +51.6

1.94 2.16 2.14 2.09 2.14

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

for those with high education. Similarly, the highly educated group also showed a higher percentage of them feeling that they had accomplished a great deal. About 21 percent of them felt so as compared to 15 percent for those with low education and 18 percent for those with medium education.

July 2, 2009

64

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

The differences in felt achievement also varied more among those with different levels of income. Only 66 percent of those with low income felt they had achieved some or a great deal in life. In contrast, almost 85 percent of those with high income and 76 percent of those with middle income shared similar feelings. In addition, almost 22 percent of those with high income felt they had achieved a great deal, compared to only about 11 percent of those with low income. When life accomplishment was compared across respondents with different faiths, it was revealed that Christians had the highest percentage of them feeling that they had achieved some or a great deal in life. About 83 percent of them felt this way as compared to the range from 72.6 percent for Muslims to 75.7 percent for those without a religion. Both the Buddhists and Hindus had the same percentage (about 75%) feeling they had achieved some or a great deal in life. The achievement gap was smallest for Muslims followed by Buddhists. All in all, it is noted that across different demographic groups, the percentages of people who felt that they had achieved a great deal or had some level of achievement were generally higher than those who felt they had achieved little or had no achievement at all. The percentages ranged from a low of 38.9 percent (for those aged 40–49 years) to a high of 68.9 percent (for those with high income). Figure 4.1 presents the Index of Overall Life Quality for Singaporeans, a summative 7-point index that collated the positive scores for happiness, enjoyment and achievement using the top two response categories for these scale items. Only 6.9 percent of the respondents did not report any positive score for this index, while the rest (93.1%) had at least one positive score in either one of the three areas of happiness, enjoyment and achievement. In fact, the majority of respondents (71.6%) had an index of three and above. Generally, Singaporeans appeared to be very satisfied with their overall quality of life. When we examined how Singaporeans felt about their overall quality of life in more demographic detail, some significant differences are noteworthy (see Table 4.3). Lower means in Table 4.3 indicate a higher degree of happiness, enjoyment or achievement. Males (mean of 2.05) are less happy than females (mean of 1.98), although they do not differ in terms of their

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

65

views about enjoyment and achievement. The differences for gender were not statistically significant across happiness, enjoyment and achievement. Married people were happier, and enjoyed life more than their single counterparts, although there were no statistically significant differences on their 35 30.2% 30

Percentage

25 18.9%

20 14.8%

15.1%

15 10

6.9%

6.5%

0

1

7.4%

5 0 2

3

4

5

6

Number of Quality of Life Domains

Figure 4.1. Index of Overall Life Quality. Source:Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

Table 4.3 Means Comparison for Happiness, Enjoyment and Achievement by Demographics Demographics

Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

Gender Male Female F-Stats P<

2.05 1.98 1.84 NS

1.81 1.77 0.82 NS

2.11 2.09 0.27 NS

Marital Status Single Married F-Stats P<

2.11 1.94 8.31 0.00

1.83 1.75 6.89 NS

2.08 2.09 0.04 NS (Continued )

July 2, 2009

11:59

66

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch04

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 4.3 Demographics

(Continued )

Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

2.01 1.96 2.04 2.03 2.03 0.35 NS

1.73 1.76 1.84 1.83 1.71 1.33 NS

2.11 2.09 2.19 2.02 1.97 2.42 0.05

Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 F-Stats P< Education Low Medium High F-Stats P< Household Income Low Medium High F-Stats P<

2.02 2.02 1.96 0.44 NS

1.85 1.75 1.65 6.98 0.00

2.17 2.04 1.97 7.18 0.00

2.17 1.91 1.98 8.03 0.00

1.98 1.69 1.72 17.30 0.00

2.32 2.10 1.94 22.17 0.00

Religion Christian Muslim Hindu Buddhist None F-Stats P<

2.01 1.79 2.01 2.07 2.16 5.44 0.00

1.69 1.72 1.75 1.85 1.85 2.52 0.04

1.94 2.16 2.09 2.14 2.14 3.13 0.01

Note: Based on 5-point scale, from 1 = Very Happy to 5 = Very Unhappy. Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

enjoyment and achievement scores. In terms of achievement, those aged 60–69 years were most optimistic about what they were getting done in their lives followed by those aged 50–59 years and then 30–39 years. Generally, those with higher education and income felt happier with their overall

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement and Overall Quality of Life

b773-ch04

67

quality of life in all three aspects as they seemed to have more resources and opportunities to succeed in life. The difference was statistically significant for the effect of education on enjoyment and achievement. Those with higher education enjoyed life more than those with middle education. Those with middle income enjoyed life more than those with higher income but those with higher income felt they had achieved more than those with lower income. In terms of religion, those who have no religion appeared to be least happy, enjoyed their lives the least and were not very proud of their accomplishments. The Buddhists and Hindus were in the average threshold with middle-range scores on happiness, enjoyment and achievement. Muslims were happiest (mean of 1.79) but ironically had the poorest score on achievement (mean of 2.16). They seemed to be deriving happiness from other sources apart from achievement. The Christians had the second highest score on happiness (mean of 2.01), and enjoyed life the most (mean of 1.69) while feeling the best about their achievements (mean of 1.94). Chapter Summary Singaporeans are quite a happy lot and appear to be the happiest among the East Asian countries surveyed in this study. Being happy, Singaporeans appear to be enjoying life but perceive that they have yet to achieve more in life. On the other hand, people in Taiwan are the least happy and very few perceive that they have achieved much in life. Although they are not necessarily the happiest and do not think they have achieved much in life, people in Vietnam enjoyed life the most among the seven countries surveyed. Across demographics, a happy Singaporean is likely to be female, married, has a religion, received a high level of education, and earned middle to high income. A Singaporean who enjoys life is likely to be older (60–69 years of age), married, has a religion, armed with a middle to high level of education and earned middle income. A Singaporean who reports having achieved something in life is very likely to be older, has a religion, received a high level of education and earned a high income, regardless of gender and marital status.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

5 Value Orientations and Lifestyles .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In this chapter, we discuss the value orientations and lifestyles of Singaporeans, in terms of their family orientation, their spirituality, their global outlook, and their digital lifestyle. Selective cross-country comparisons will also be made with samples from the other East Asian societies (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam). Family Orientation The 1994 Family Values campaign started by the Singapore Government has succeeded in creating a heightened sense of family orientation among Singaporeans. The family values that were espoused in this campaign were: (1) love, care, and concern; (2) mutual respect; (3) filial responsibility; (4) commitment; and (5) communication. According to a nationwide survey done in 2001, Singaporeans scored highly on a composite scale that measured their responses to statements reflecting family values that the policy makers emphasized in the said campaign (Kau et al., 2004). These statements are given in Table 5.1. This family orientation was also reflected in the 2006 AsiaBarometer study. In Chapter 3, we showed that “spending time with family” was Singaporeans’ fourth highest priority in life. This priority was shared unanimously across all age groups. It also appeared within the top five priorities for all demographic groups with some according it greater importance. For example, Christians selected this as their second highest priority. Those who are female, married, Muslim, and/or with high education and income 68

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

Table 5.1

69

Statements on Family Values

1. Family love makes a person feel appreciated and treasured. 2. Family members should communicate openly and honestly with each other. 3. Family members should stand by one another through the ups and downs in life. 4. One should honor one’s parents and grandparents. 5. Family members should be prepared to make sacrifices to help each other. 6. One should support one’s parents in their old age. 7. One should strive to provide the best for one’s children. Source: Kau et al. (2004). Understanding Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Aspirations and Consumption Behaviors. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., p. 18.

chose this as their third highest priority. Across the six East Asian countries, “spending time with family” was among the top five priorities for people in Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea, but this emphasis was not shared by people in China, Taiwan and Vietnam. With Singaporeans’ focus on spending time with the family, it is thus not surprising to find that family (99.7%) and relatives (79.8%) were the two most important social groups for Singaporeans (see Table 5.2a) with colleagues Table 5.2a

Most Important Social Circles or Groups (Singapore)

Social circles or groups

Percentage

1. Family 2. Relatives 3. Place of work 4. Neighborhood 5. Religion 6. People who speak the same language 7. The area where you grew up 8. The school/university you attended 9. The political party 10. Club, hobby circle 11. Labor union 12. Agricultural cooperative, commercial cooperative or industry group 13. Others Figures in bold indicate top three important social circle/group.

99.7 79.8 53.4 48.7 33.6 21.8 20.1 16.9 11.5 10.3 6.8 3.4 1.3

July 2, 2009

11:59

70

Table 5.2b

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Most Important Social Circles or Groups (six EastAsian countries)

Social circles or groups

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

1. Family 2. Relatives 3. Place of work 4. Neighborhood 5. Religion 6. People who speak the same language 7. The area where you grew up 8. The school/university you attended 9. The political party 10. Club, hobby circle 11. Labor union 12. Agricultural cooperative, commercial cooperative or industry group 13. Others

95.3 67.6 56.0 38.2 4.3 27.0

97.1 66.0 51.5 8.8 5.0 17.3

98.0 95.7 62.0 63.8 44.4 40.4 39.4 45.3 4.9 18.9 10.3 1.9

93.9 98.5 59.2 80.7 49.0 57.2 44.9 71.0 5.6 0 16.4 8.9

34.1 16.7

26.1 25.4

11.9 8.7

32.5 21.1

28.4 16.3

33.6 14.2

10.1 17.1 5.1 7.3

0.4 20.8 0.7 0.8

1.4 22.7 1.6 2.0

1.1 21.1 0.9 1.9

0.8 24.0 3.9 10.1

0 10.4 11.0 4.9

0.1

0

3.1

0.1

0

0.2

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. Figures in bold indicate top three important social circle/group.

at a distant third. However, it is interesting to note that although not all of the six East Asian countries view spending time with the family as one of their top priorities in life, like Singaporeans, all of them indicated family and relatives as their two most important social groups (see Table 5.2b). To all Asians, especially Singaporeans, family is important when it comes to dealing with personal or financial crises. When asked “If the breadwinner of your household should die or become unable to work due to illness,” most Singaporeans (67.1%, see Table 5.3a) and most people in the other six East Asian countries (see Table 5.3b) would first consider “another adult member of the household to “maintain the household budget”, before falling back on insurance policies. Insurance as an external coping mechanism was the preferred second option for Singaporeans (47% in Table 5.3a), Japanese, South Koreans, and Taiwanese (38.6%, 39.6%, and 29.4%, respectively in

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

Table 5.3a

71

Dependence in Times of Need (Singapore)

If the main breadwinner of your household should die or become unable to work due to illness, how would your household maintain the household budget? 1. Another adult member of the household would become the main breadwinner 2. Have an insurance policy to cover such a situation 3. Would get support from relatives 4. Would get social welfare payments 5. Depend on retirement allowance 6. Would send one or more of the children out to work 7. Other 8. Would get support from members of my religious group 9. Don’t know 10. Would get support from neighbors

Percentage 67.1 47.0 18.2 18.2 11.7 9.8 7.4 3.2 0.8 0.4

Figures in bold indicate top three important dependence.

Table 5.3b). Alternatively, the Mainland Chinese and Vietnamese would deploy their children to work (27.7% and 41.5%, respectively in Table 3b). This reliance on family and self help is reflective of Confucian values of family which are deeply rooted in the traditional cultures of East Asian societies. The emphasis on family values is also reflected in the top three qualities that Singaporean children are encouraged to learn at home: Honesty (55.3%), Independence (44.7%), and Diligence (25.6%), as shown in Table 5.4a. Honesty and Independence were also highly regarded among all East Asian countries with some exceptions. The Japanese prized “mindfulness” (65.6%) and “sincerity” (27.5%), while the South Koreans chose “sincerity” (41%) as the top quality they would like to nurture in their children (see Table 5.4b). When asked about their expectations for their children, a majority of Singaporeans would like their offspring to grow up to become a person who cares about family, regardless of gender (see Table 5.5a). However, this gender-neutral expectation was not shared by people in the other six East Asian countries. As shown in Table 5.5b, a majority of all

July 2, 2009

72

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 5.3b

Dependence in Times of Need (six East Asian countries)

If the main breadwinner of your household should die or become unable to work due to illness, how would your household maintain the household budget? 1. Another adult member of the household would become the main breadwinner 2. Have an insurance policy to cover such a situation 3. Would get support from relatives 4. Would get social welfare payments 5. Depend on retirement allowance 6. Would send one or more of the children out to work 7. Other 8. Would get support from members of my religious group 9. Don’t know 10. Would get support from neighbors

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

65.8 66.8 66.0 70.9 74.9 53.9

12.0 19.6 38.6 39.6 29.4 19.9 25.7 17.1 9.9 27.7

29.0 7.2 11.8 17.6 19.1 31.9 30.6 19.4 25.4 6.8 11.0 7.7 12.9 11.5 10.5 29.6 9.2 5.6 25.5 41.5

21.9 1.5

4.6 1.2

5.7 0.2

4.2 2.9

3.4 2.5

8.0 1.4

0.2 4.5

1.4 1.0

3.1 0.3

3.4 2.6

2.2 0.9

3.6 3.8

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. Figures in bold indicate top three important dependence.

parents in these countries (except those in Hong Kong and Japan) would like their daughter to find a good marriage partner when they grow up, but a majority of all parents (except those in South Korea) expect their son to grow up to become a loving and charitable person. In contrast, most Japanese parents would like their daughter to grow up to become a loving and charitable person as well as one who cares about the family, most Hong Konger parents would like their daughter to grow up to become a loving and charitable person; while most South Korean parents expect their son to grow up to become a person who is respected by the masses. With such a strong family focus and satisfaction with family life as reported earlier in Chapter 2, it is not surprising to note that Singaporeans greatly valued the continuation of the family line. Almost two out of ten

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

Table 5.4a (Singapore)

73

Qualities that Children are Encouraged to Learn at Home

Qualities that children can be encouraged to learn at home

Percentage 55.3 44.7 25.6 22.3 18.2 8.7 8.4 7.3 6.6 1.9 0.7

1. Honesty 2. Independence 3. Diligence 4. Respect for senior persons 5. Sincerity 6. Humbleness 7. Religiosity 8. Patience 9. Mindfulness 10. Competitiveness 11. Deference for teachers Figures in bold indicate top three important qualities.

Table 5.4b Qualities that Children are Encouraged to Learn at Home (six East Asian countries) Qualities that children can be encouraged to learn at home

CH

1. Honesty 2. Independence 3. Diligence 4. Respect for senior persons 5. Sincerity 6. Humbleness 7. Religiosity 8. Patience 9. Mindfulness 10. Competitiveness 11. Deference for teachers

33.6 41.3 32.8 37.6 38.3 34.9 47.6 33.9 18.7 37.0 35.7 34.0 43.0 35.7 8.4 25.3 44.5 37.3 25.2 18.2 14.9 7.3 7.0 33.9 11.9 16.7 27.5 41.0 12.5 27.3 6.6 14.7 5.2 12.0 15.8 7.4 1.6 4.5 2.4 7.1 3.0 0.6 8.4 12.6 16.4 12.1 11.5 11.3 6.2 14.8 65.6 11.3 11.3 7.0 11.7 3.5 2.0 1.8 5.5 2.3 3.5 2.3 0.7 5.8 0.6 4.0

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. Figures in bold indicate top three important qualities.

July 2, 2009

11:59

74

Table 5.5a (Singapore)

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

How Would You Like Your Son/Daughter To Grow Up To Be?

How would you like your — to grow up to be? 1. Become a person who cares about family 2. Become a loving and charitable person 3. Become more proficient in profession than I am 4. Become a great scholar 5. Become a person respected by the masses 6. Become very wealthy 7. Find a good marriage partner 8. Become fulfilled spiritually 9. Become a powerful political leader 10. Follow in my footsteps

Son (Percentage)

Daughter (Percentage)

51.9 42.2 27.6

52.5 40.8 21.6

24.5 13.8 13.2 11.7 9.1 2.4 1.3

18.7 9.0 9.2 32.3 9.5 1.2 3.1

Figures in bold indicate top three expectations.

(19.1%) would consider adopting and about one out of two (50.9%) were willing to consider adoption if they had no descendents (see Table 5.6a). The only East Asian country that shared this identical preference pattern was China (see Table 5.6b), and Vietnam was particularly favorable towards adoption. In contrast, people in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan were not receptive towards this option. However, for Singaporeans, this concern about preserving the family line does not apply when it comes to work or business, as three out of four (76.2%) would consider an outsider over a relative when it comes to choosing the best candidate for employment (see Table 5.7a). In contrast, only about three out of five (61.5%) of the Mainland Chinese would behave similarly (see Table 5.7b). In comparing Tables 5.7a and 5.7b, we note that Singapore ranked highest in terms of the percentage of respondents who would choose the best candidate for employment over a relative. Hence it appears that despite Singaporeans’ family orientation, nepotism does not seem to apply and this is reflective of the Singapore Government’s effort in instilling and cultivating a “no corruption” culture.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

75

Table 5.5b How Would You Like Your Son/Daughter To Grow Up To Be? (six East Asian countries) Son (Percentage) How would you like your — to grow up to be?

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

1. Become a person who cares about 16.6 33.2 54.8 30.3 25.1 24.5 family 2. Become a loving and charitable 30.6 46.9 37.7 23.2 37.7 43.8 person 3. Become more proficient in 29.7 24.5 6.7 15.3 29.5 43.8 profession than I am 4. Become a great scholar 21.2 20.4 2.0 17.5 16.9 6.8 5. Become a person respected by the 29.2 22.9 39.4 47.1 29.3 21.8 masses 6. Become very wealthy 27.0 14.7 4.4 15.7 23.8 15.5 7. Find a good marriage partner 17.3 14.6 7.8 18.9 15.2 15.6 8. Become fulfilled spiritually 11.7 12.5 39.4 20.7 11.8 14.0 9. Become a powerful political leader 9.6 5.6 1.3 7.8 5.5 9.8 10. Follow in my footsteps 2.0 3.7 0.4 2.1 2.3 2.7 Daughter (Percentage) How would you like your — to grow up to be?

CH

HK

1. Become a person who cares about 21.0 30.7 family 2. Become a loving and charitable 39.8 51.1 person 3. Become more proficient in 15.0 14.0 profession than I am 4. Become a great scholar 12.9 11.6 5. Become a person respected by the 14.1 15.4 masses 6. Become very wealthy 19.9 14.6 7. Find a good marriage partner 53.5 42.9 8. Become fulfilled spiritually 10.0 10.7 9. Become a powerful political leader 3.3 4.2 10. Follow in my footsteps 2.1 3.2

JP

SK

TW

VN

55.6

37.6

28.8

45.5

58.3

38.6

39.8

33.2

0.9

7.4

12.0

19.4

0.4 8.9

5.0 24.1

9.1 11.8

2.2 11.3

1.2 9.7 24.3 53.2 31.2 19.2 0 1.9 0.9 1.1

18.6 57.2 14.0 2.2 2.5

8.3 52.0 20.8 2.1 2.4

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam. Figures in bold indicate top three expectations.

July 2, 2009

11:59

76

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 5.6a Consideration For Adoption If You Have No Descendents … (Singapore) If you had no descendents, would you think it desirable to adopt somebody in order to continue the family line, even if there were no blood relationship? Percentage 1. Would adopt 2. Would not adopt 3. It would depend on circumstances 4. Don’t know Total

19.1 23.2 50.9 6.8 100%

Table 5.6b Consideration For Adoption If You Have No Descendents … (six East Asian Countries) If you had no descendents, would you think it desirable to adopt somebody in order to continue the family line, even if there were no blood relationship? 1. Would adopt 2. Would not adopt 3. It would depend on circumstances 4. Don’t know Total

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

19.1 28.6

18.6 53.6

7.1 41.5

15.6 43.4

15.7 44.6

27.9 24.1

51.9 1.4 100%

25.8 2.0 100%

49.0 2.4 100%

38.6 2.4 100%

36.3 3.4 100%

45.7 2.3 100%

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

Spirituality Compared to the East Asian countries covered in the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey, Singapore is considerably more diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have predominantly ethnic Chinese populations. While the Mainland Chinese may have more atheist leanings due to their communist philosophies, the Chinese in Hong Kong

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

Table 5.7a

77

Choosing the Best Candidate for Your Company … (Singapore)

Suppose that you are the president of a company, in the company’s employment examination, a relative of yours got the second highest grade, scoring only marginally less than the candidate with the highest grade. In such a case, which person would you employ? 1. The person with the highest grade 2. Your relative 3. Don’t know Total

Percentage 76.2 15.5 8.3 100%

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

Table 5.7b countries)

Choosing the Best Candidate for Your Company … (six East Asian

Suppose that you are the president of a company, in the company’s employment examination, a relative of yours got the second highest grade, scoring only marginally less than the candidate with the highest grade. In such a case, which person would you employ? CH 1. The person with the highest grade 2. Your relative 3. Don’t know Total

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

61.5 63.8 50.3 64.7 58.1 70.5 38.4 34.7 40.0 32.9 36.3 27.4 0.1 1.5 9.7 2.4 5.7 2.1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

and Taiwan have practiced various forms of Buddhism and Taoism. The people of Japan, South Korea and Vietnam are more ethnically homogenous due to lower rates of migration and intermarriage with other ethnic groups. Singapore is a multi-ethnic society, and inter-religious harmony is a highly prized nationalistic ideal and goal. Singapore is also more eclectic in terms

July 2, 2009

11:59

78

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

of religion compared to predominantly Muslim countries (such as Malaysia and Indonesia) and Buddhist countries (such as Thailand) in South East Asia. As far as having a religion is concerned, the majority of Singaporeans indicated a religious affiliation (87.2%), compared to countries like China, Hong Kong, and Japan where 79.5 percent, 72.8 percent, and 60.1 percent do not have any religious affiliation. However, this religious affiliation may not necessarily translate into active involvement in religious activities (see Table 5.8). Only about half of the Singaporean respondents (47.7%) indicated that they prayed or mediated daily (see Table 5.8). This finding is not surprising as earlier nationwide surveys showed that attendance at religious services have been small and declining [26% in 1996 versus 19.8% in 2001, as reported in Kau et al. (2004)]. Nonetheless, Singapore still ranked highest amongst all the six East Asian countries in terms of the percentage of people who pray or meditate daily (China 5.4%, Hong Kong 6.9%, Japan 22.4%, South Korea 17.5%, Taiwan 7.6%, and Vietnam 4.5%). Although two out of ten (21.6%) Singaporeans never pray or meditate at all, this percentage was the smallest compared to the other six countries (China 67.5%, Hong Kong 78.1%, Japan 35.6%, South Korea 38%, Taiwan 40.7%, and Vietnam 23.5%). Membership in churches, mosques and temples is prevalent among many Singaporeans. However, there are others who maintain an interest in spiritual matters without belonging to a formal religious group. Spirituality may Table 5.8

Spirituality Percentages

Statement 1. I pray or meditate daily. 2. I never pray or meditate. 3. I definitely/somewhat believe in an unseen spiritual world. 4. I have no religious affiliation.

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

47.7 5.4 6.9 22.4 17.5 7.6 4.5 21.6 67.5 78.1 35.6 38.0 40.7 23.5 57.6 49.2 54.6 49.4 47.7 69.8 54.1 12.8

79.5

72.8

60.1

43.1

24.1

31.5

Note: SP = Singapore, CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

b773-ch05

79

be construed as a more personalized form of religious expression which does not require a person to be part of institutionalized religion. Hence, when asked to indicate the extent to which they believe in an unseen spiritual world that can influence events in the world around them, a majority of Singaporeans (57.6%) still indicated “definitely I believe” and “somewhat I believe”. However, these figures were lower compared to the case of Taiwan which had the highest percentage of people who belonged to this category (69.8%). Our definition of spirituality being construed as a less formal expression of faith which does not require a person to be part of institutionalized religion is well supported by the fact that although three quarters of the Mainland Chinese people and close to three quarters of the people in Hong Kong do not have a religion, close to half (49.2%) and more than half (54.6%) of them, respectively affirmed their belief in the unseen spiritual world. The Spirituality Index for Singaporeans was constructed by counting their responses to the questions on religious affiliation, praying ritual, and whether they believe in the unseen spiritual world. A person who professed a religious faith, who prayed or mediated “daily” and “weekly” and indicated “definitely I believe” and “somewhat I believe” in an unseen spiritual world, would have a score of three on the Spirituality Index. This would categorize him/her as being more concerned about his/her spirituality and a keen participant in practices relating to spirituality. According to Table 5.10, Singaporeans placed considerable emphasis on maintaining their spirituality. About four in ten respondents (39%) had a score of three on the Spirituality Index, and 70.6 percent had at least a score of two. Men and women were almost equally interested in spiritual matters. Those who were more spiritually inclined tended to be married, from the older age groups (40 years and above), with high education, and earning low or medium incomes. Those who professed to be Muslims (64%) and Christians (60.1%) were very involved in practices of spirituality. In contrast, 62.4 percent of those with no religious affiliation had a score of zero on the Spirituality Index. Younger people (less than 40 years of age) and those who were highly educated and earning high incomes were also less spiritually-oriented.

July 2, 2009

11:59

80

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Global Outlook Some comparisons were made between Singapore and the other countries in terms of their openness to globalization (see Table 5.9). Singapore was first in all aspects of global connections. Hong Kong was second in all aspects except for TV programming (29.1%) where they had a preference for their own local programming due to the veracity of the Cantonese language and a strong film/TV industry. China (25.1%) and Japan (23.2%) also had relatively low percentages of exposure to foreign-produced TV programming. Most of the exposure Asians had was through TV programming, highlighting the widespread prevalence of this media in influencing the consumption Table 5.9

Global or International Connections Percentages

Statement 1. A member of my family or a relative lives in another country. 2. I have traveled abroad at least three times in the past three years, on holiday or for business purposes. 3. I have friends from other country who are in my country. 4. I often watch foreignproduced programs on TV. 5. I often communicate with people in other countries via the Internet or email. 6. My job involves contact with organizations or people in other countries. 7. None of the above.

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

55.1

9.7

35.5

10.6

24.1

17.3

32.0

50.5

2.3

17.3

8.7

5.5

8.4

2.0

45.9

3.9

13.3

10.2

4.5

11.6

4.3

73.1

25.1

29.1

23.2

35.1

45.9

39.7

29.0

1.4

10.7

4.5

4.5

3.5

7.3

17.5

1.7

6.6

6.5

2.2

2.5

3.2

9.1

66.0

40.5

60.4

47.3

39.6

37.9

Note: SP = Singapore, CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

b773-ch05

81

behaviors of people on a global basis. The impact of the Internet and email seems to be lagging behind, although it is not clear if this question adequately captured all the aspects of interacting with the Internet. The second most prevalent exposure was gained through having a family member or relative living in another country. More than half of the Singaporeans surveyed (55.1%) have a family or relative living in another country, a percentage which is highest amongst all the other six East Asian countries (China 9.7%, Hong Kong 35.5%, Japan 10.6%, South Korea 24.1%, Taiwan 17.3% and Vietnam 32%). Half (50.5%) of the Singaporeans surveyed claimed to have traveled at least three times in the past three years either for business or holiday purposes; this percentage is again highest amongst all the other six East Asian countries (China 2.3%, Hong Kong 17.3%, Japan 8.7%, South Korea 5.5%, Taiwan 8.4% and Vietnam 2%). Generally, Singaporeans are more well traveled than their East Asian counterparts. Singaporeans also appear to make friends readily across borders (45.9% versus China (3.9%), Hong Kong (13.3%), Japan (10.2%), South Korea (4.5%), Taiwan (11.6%), and Vietnam (4.3%),) and are extensively exposed to foreign-produced programs on TV (73.1% versus China (25.1%), Hong Kong (29.1%), Japan (23.2%), South Korea (35.1%), Taiwan (45.9%), and Vietnam (39.7%)). It should be noted that in Singapore, quite a number of TV programs are imported from the United States such as Hollywood movies, reality TV shows, situation comedies, etc. Singaporeans communicate fairly often with people in other countries via the internet or email (29.0% versus China (1.4%), Hong Kong (10.7%), Japan (4.5%), South Korea (4.5%), Taiwan (3.5%) and Vietnam (7.3%)). This international contact seems to be more of a personal nature or centered around family and friends rather than with colleagues or work-related personnel, as most of their jobs do not involve contact with organizations or people in other countries (17.5% versus China (1.7%), Hong Kong (6.6%), Japan (6.5%), South Korea (2.2%), Taiwan (2.5%) and Vietnam (3.2%)). Singaporeans’ responses to the foregoing six questions on openness and interaction with others were counted to form the Global Life Index. A higher score on this index shows that the respondent is embracing more of the globalized aspects of living in his/her society (see Table 5.10). There

July 2, 2009

11:59

82

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 5.10 Extent of Lifestyles by Demographic Groups (Singapore) Digital Life 0 Entire sample Gender Male Female Marital Status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Christian Muslim Buddhist Hindu None

1

2

Global Life 3

0

1

2

Spirituality 3+

0

1

2

3

29.4 20.5 6.6 43.5 9.3 17.3 22.2 51.2 8.0 21.4 31.6 39.0 26.9 17.3 7.6 48.2 10.5 16.6 21.1 51.8 7.2 22.3 32.2 38.3 31.4 23.3 5.7 39.6 8.3 17.9 23.1 50.6 8.7 20.6 31.1 39.6 15.0 16.9 6.4 61.8 9.4 18.7 25.1 46.8 9.6 26.6 31.8 32.2 33.0 22.0 6.8 38.3 9.3 15.7 21.4 53.6 7.6 18.9 31.5 42.0 5.9 14.2 35.0 52.5 75.3

16.2 24.7 24.1 16.8 11.0

6.4 9.0 6.8 3.9 2.7

71.6 52.1 34.0 26.8 11.0

7.8 3.8 12.6 14.5 9.6

14.7 15.3 16.0 21.8 27.4

21.1 17.0 27.2 22.9 23.3

56.4 63.9 44.2 40.8 39.7

8.3 10.4 7.8 5.6 4.1

24.5 20.8 17.3 24.6 23.3

31.4 34.4 33.3 25.7 28.8

35.8 34.4 41.5 44.1 43.8

46.7 26.5 4.5 22.3 12.2 22.9 24.3 40.5 6.2 20.8 33.2 39.9 8.7 17.1 7.9 66.3 6.7 12.7 22.6 57.9 9.5 23.0 32.1 35.3 2.1 6.3 11.1 80.4 3.7 5.8 14.8 75.7 11.6 21.2 25.9 41.3 53.0 26.2 3.6 17.2 14.3 27.6 24.7 33.3 3.2 24.0 30.5 42.3 28.5 25.7 5.5 40.3 10.5 18.3 21.7 49.5 7.9 18.8 31.2 42.1 29.0 20.7 6.5 43.9 3.2 8.1 20.6 68.0 11.6 23.0 32.3 33.1 20.8 30.6 38.0 22.6 19.5

17.3 34.2 17.1 21.5 12.0

5.8 5.4 6.2 8.6 9.0

56.1 29.7 38.7 47.3 59.4

7.5 11.3 11.7 2.2 6.8

11.6 21.2 19.1 10.8 18.0

17.3 19.8 26.8 17.2 21.8

63.6 47.7 42.4 69.9 53.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.4

13.9 7.2 28.0 20.4 34.6

26.0 28.8 46.2 25.8 3.0

60.1 64.0 25.8 53.8 0.0

Source: Tambyah, SK et al. (2009).

were no significant difference for gender, However, those who were more globally aware and connected were the younger Singaporeans in their twenties (56.4%) and thirties (63.9%), those who were married (53.6%), those with higher education (75.7%) and income (68%), and the Hindus (69.9%) and Christians (63.6%).

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

83

Digital Lifestyle The usage of electronic communication technologies such as computers and mobile phones is a pervasive part of everyday life in modern societies like Singapore and the other six East Asian countries. When asked “how often do you view Internet web pages by computers”, almost equal percentages of respondents reported viewing web pages “almost everyday” (35.9%) and “never” (36.7%) (see Table 5.11). A nationwide survey in 2001 on Singaporeans’ responses to a series of questions on their Internet usage showed a low score on E-Orientation Table 5.11

Digital Lifestyle Percentages

Statement

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

1. How often do you view Internet web pages by computers? a. Almost everyday 35.9 14.7 39.7 27.5 49.1 b. Several times a week 12.4 8.6 11.9 16.1 13.4 c. Several times a month 5.2 5.6 5.7 7.6 3.8 d. Seldom 8.9 11.5 11.4 6.4 5.1 e. Never 36.7 58.0 31.3 41.4 28.6

28.0 11.9 5.2 10.5 44.2

6.9 6.6 5.5 11.5 67.2

2. How often do you read or write emails by computers? a. Almost everyday 57.8 29.1 18.7 47.8 b. Several times a week 10.1 11.8 14.7 15.1 c. Several times a month 4.0 5.8 11.6 4.6 d. Seldom 6.2 13.9 22.5 5.9 e. Never 21.9 39.4 32.5 26.6

52.2 14.9 5.0 7.2 20.3

18.0 17.6 13.6 20.9 29.7

25.4 6.8 5.1 13.8 48.9

3. How often do you read or write messages by mobile phones? a. Almost everyday 35.5 6.8 30.3 21.6 28.7 b. Several times a week 12.5 6.4 11.6 10.9 14.0 c. Several times a month 5.3 5.9 6.2 5.1 7.0 d. Seldom 8.5 11.9 11.7 13.2 11.3 e. Never 38.2 69.0 40.2 48.2 38.7

21.6 11.9 6.0 11.5 48.9

4.5 6.7 5.5 8.5 74.8

Note: SP = Singapore, CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

July 2, 2009

84

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 5.12 Statements on E-orientation 1. I use the Internet to learn about my hobbies and interests. 2. I enjoy exploring web pages on the Internet. 3. I use the Internet to enhance my work productivity. 4. I use E-mail to regularly keep in touch with my friends. 5. I meet people and make new friends on the Internet. 6. The Internet has become an integral part of my life. Source: Kau et al. (2004). Understanding Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Aspirations and Consumption Behaviors. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., p. 135.

(Kau et al., 2004). The 2001 survey asked respondents questions on six aspects of E-orientation as shown in Table 5.12. Hence, the current dichotomy in the Internet usage implies that that this information technology has yet to be widely embraced by Singaporeans. The only country among the six East Asian countries under comparison that shared this dichotomy is Hong Kong (39.7% and 31.3%, respectively). However, this cyber-gap is smaller for the frequency of reading and writing emails by computers, as about 3 in 5 Singaporeans (57.8%) read and write emails by computers on a daily basis, compared to 22 percent who have never engaged in this activity, while the gap is much smaller in Hong Kong (18.7% and 32.5%, respectively). The same dichotomy was noted for the use of mobile phones, with 35.5 percent of Singaporeans stating that they do so almost daily while 38.2 percent had never done so. Surprisingly, this gap is considerably larger in countries like Japan (21.6% and 48.2%, respectively), Taiwan (21.6% and 48.9%, respectively), and Hong Kong (30.3% and 40.2%, respectively) where mobile phone technology has reportedly been more widely adopted in their populations. In terms of demographic profiling, Singaporean frequent viewers of Internet web pages are more likely to be male, married, aged 30–39, highly educated with high household income and are Christians or those with no religion. Those who never viewed Internet web pages are more likely to be female, married, aged 40–49 years with low education and low household income, and are Buddhists or Muslims. Singaporeans who frequently read/write emails by computers are also more likely to be male, married, aged 30–39, with medium education but

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Value Orientations and Lifestyles

b773-ch05

85

high household income and are Christians or those with no religion. Those who never read/write emails from computers are more likely to be female, married, aged 40–49 with low education and low household income, and are Buddhists or Muslims. Frequent and non-readers/writers of messages by phones in Singapore are more likely to be female, married, and Christians or those with no religion. However, they are dissimilar in terms of age, education, and household income. Frequent readers/writers tend to be younger (30–39 years) and could have low to high education although most have medium to high income. Non-readers/writers tend to be older (40–49 years) with mostly low education and low household income, and are Buddhists. A Digital Life Index was devised to evaluate how prevalent the usage of electronic communication technologies was among Singaporeans. The index was computed by counting the responses to the three questions asking how often Singaporeans view webpages, read emails and send messages on their mobile phones. A higher score shows that a person uses these technologies more frequently. Generally, across different forms of communication technologies, males, single people and those who are younger tend to be more frequent in their usage (see Table 5.10). Those with lower levels of education and income were not as engaged in the digital life. Christians (56.1%) and those with no religion (59.4%) scored higher on the Digital Life Index compared to the other religious groups with the Muslims (29.7%) being the least frequent in their usage of electronic communication technologies. Chapter Summary Singaporeans are more family oriented than their counterparts in East Asia (namely China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam, hereinafter referred to as six East Asian Countries). They placed “spending time with family” as their fourth top priority in life, valued family members and relatives as their two most important social groups, and in turn are rewarded with a very satisfying family life. They would like their offspring, regardless of gender, to grow up to be a person who cares about the family, and honesty, independence, and diligence are three qualities they wish to nurture in them. Hence they would expect help from family members first

July 2, 2009

86

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch05

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

before turning to other forms of assistance when they are financially challenged. Although Singaporeans would not hesitate to consider adoption as a means to continue the family line, this attitude and their overall family orientation do not extend to their areas of work or business. A large majority of Singaporeans (highest among all six East Asian countries) would consider a competent outsider over a relative when it comes to choosing the best candidate for employment. Singaporeans are largely religious people although the majority of them do not practice their religion in an overt manner. Regardless of their religious denominations, most Singaporeans compared to other East Asians placed considerable emphasis on maintaining their spirituality, especially those who are married and those with middle levels of education. Compared to their East Asian counterparts, Singaporeans are more widely traveled and have more exposure to the outside world through having a family or relative living in another country, and making friends with people from other countries. Singaporeans thus score highly in terms of the Global Life Index, which assessed Singaporeans’ openness and interactions with others in the world. Globalized Singaporeans tend to be younger, married, and have higher education and income. As far as using the Internet is concerned, there is a cyber-gap among Singaporeans who do and do not use this tool to access information on the web. However, there is no such gap when it comes to using the computer to read and write emails. Surprisingly, when compared to countries like Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong where mobile phone technology has reportedly been more widely adopted in the population, the dichotomy in terms of Singaporeans who use and do not use mobile phones is considerably smaller. Age, gender, education, marital status, income, and even religion are shown to have an impact on distinguishing among Singaporeans in this cyber-gap, as confirmed by the scores on the Digital Life Index, which was devised to evaluate how prevalent the usage of electronic communication technologies was among Singaporeans.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch06

6 National Identity .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

For the fourth time in seven years, Singapore tops the list as the most globalized country in the world (Globalization Index, 2007). Among the 2.8 million residents aged 15 years and above in Singapore, 50 percent made at least one trip overseas. The majority of Singaporeans have traveled overseas for holidays and are well connected with the outside world. Singapore is also very open and welcoming of non-residents and visitors. Singapore was noted as the best place to live for expatriates in 2008, holding on to the top accolade it had garnered in 2006 (ECA International, 2008). As discussed in Chapter 5, Singaporeans are becoming more globally aware and connected. How do the increasing prevalence of travel and the constant exposure to global media, influence Singaporeans’ sense of place and rootedness? How do the increasing rates of migrant labor and the employment of foreign workers affect Singaporeans’ sense of identity, fears about their livelihood, etc? In this chapter, we discuss the strength of national identity taking in account these countervailing influences of globalization. Specifically, we discuss national identity using English fluency, national identification, national pride, the feelings about the superiority of one’s culture, opinions about restrictions on the foreign workforce and views about patriotic education. Selective cross-country comparisons will also be made with samples from the other East Asian societies (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam).

87

July 2, 2009

11:59

88

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch06

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

English Fluency In response to the question “How well do you speak English?”, slightly more than half (53.9%) of the Singaporeans surveyed claimed “they speak English fluently”, while more than a quarter (28.4%) said “they speak it well enough to get by in daily life” (see Table 6.1). This is similar to the results from the 2004 AsiaBarometer Survey (Sonoda, 2006, p. 212) where 57 percent of Singaporeans said they spoke English fluently, a figure which was “approximately eight times as large as the average of the 13 Asian countries” covered in that survey. The Singapore education system teaches English as the first language and uses it as the main language for instruction in educational institutions. Thus most Singaporeans with an elementary level of education are fairly comfortable with speaking English. Although Malay is the national language, English is more widely used in the media and for commercial transactions. Compared to Singaporeans who are fairly fluent in spoken English, her Asian counterparts are not as proficient in the language (see Table 6.1). For instance, less than 5 percent of people surveyed in the other six Asian countries could speak English fluently. Apart from the Hong Kongers (23.1%) who can speak English well enough to get by in daily life, other Asians are not so comfortable using the language. Close to 60 percent of Chinese, slightly more than half of Taiwanese (51.5%) and about four in ten Vietnamese (41.6%) do not speak any English at all. Table 6.1.

Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

How Well do You Speak English?

Not at all (%)

Very little (%)

Enough to get by in daily life (%)

I can speak fluent English (%)

Don’t know (%)

3.5 59.9 27.7 32.5 27.3 51.5 41.6

14.1 33.7 45.1 54.5 55.6 40.0 34.0

28.4 5.6 23.1 11.5 16.3 6.6 14.8

53.9 0.7 3.9 1.3 0.8 1.5 2.2

0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.5 7.4

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

National Identity

b773-ch06

89

National Identification To assess the strength of one’s national identification, it is useful to review the responses to three related questions, namely: (1) Do you think of yourself as (of a particular nationality, for example, Singaporean)? (2) How proud are you of being (of a particular nationality)? (3) Do you identify with any transnational group? For the third question, respondents were asked if they felt closely aligned with being Asian, an ethnic group, a language group, a religious group, any other transnational identity or if they do not identify particularly with any transnational group. The majority of respondents surveyed (84.3%) identified themselves as “Singaporean” (see Table 6.2) although close to 15 percent chose to identify with their racial groups, classifying themselves as Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others (CMIO). The CMIO classification has been used for various governmental purposes such as census-taking and the allocation of subsidized housing. There were 52 percent and 38.8 percent who felt “very proud” and “somewhat proud” to be Singaporean respectively (see Table 6.3). Most Singaporeans would identify themselves primarily as Asians (62.2%) although 12.5 percent felt that they do not identify particularly with any group whether it is based on ethnicity, language or religion (see Table 6.4). In comparing Singaporeans with the other Asians, it is interesting to note the responses to the first question on nationality (see Table 6.2). South Koreans (98.6%), Vietnamese (98.2%) and Japanese (92.1%) were the most Table 6.2. Percentage of People who Identify Themselves by their Nationality Country Singapore Chinese Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

Percentage (Rank) 84.3 (5) 84.0 (6) 44.8 (7) 92.1 (3) 98.6 (1) 85.0 (4) 98.2 (2)

July 2, 2009

11:59

90

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch06

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 6.3.

Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

How Proud are You of being Your Country’s People?

Very proud + somewhat proud (%) (rank)

Very proud (%)

90.8 (2) 88.2 (3) 74.2 (6) 77.8 (5) 81.0 (4) 64.4 (7) 98.6 (1)

52.0 51.1 9.5 32.8 24.5 23.1 89.9

Table 6.4.

Somewhat proud Not really (%) proud (%) 38.8 37.1 64.7 45.0 56.5 41.3 8.7

Not proud at all (%)

Don’t know (%)

1.0 3.6 3.8 1.5 0.8 6.2 0.0

1.8 0.5 1.2 2.8 0.4 3.1 0.0

6.5 7.7 20.8 17.8 17.8 26.4 1.4

Do You Identify with Any Transnational Group? Percentages

Transnational group

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

1. Asian 62.2 43.5 41.7 19.6 31.5 58.9 86.9 2. Ethnic group that has common 13.2 6.8 4.1 7.5 20.4 16.6 1.2 genealogy or ancestry 3. Language group that I am 6.6 12.7 24.2 8.3 31.8 12.0 6.6 speaking 4. Religious group that I am 4.1 1.9 1.7 1.1 6.3 1.6 1.7 believing in and practicing 5. Other transnational identity 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 6. No, I don’t identify particularly 12.5 35.1 27.0 54.6 8.1 8.1 3.3 with any transnational group 7. Don’t know 1.2 0.1 0.2 7.6 1.8 2.8 0.3 Note: SP = Singapore, CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

keen to identify themselves with their respective nationalities. Singaporeans were somewhat in the middle with Taiwanese (85%) and Chinese (84%), with Hong Kongers being the least willing to identify with their nationality (44.8%).

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

National Identity

b773-ch06

91

For the second question on national pride, responses for the top two categories “very proud” and “somewhat proud” will be combined for analysis purposes (see Table 6.3). Taking the additional element of national pride into consideration, Vietnamese emerged as the most nationalistic with almost all (98.2%, rank 2 in Table 6.2) identifying with their nationality and feeling very/somewhat proud of being Vietnamese (98.6%, rank 1 in Table 6.3). Most South Koreans identified with their nationality (98.6%, rank 1 in Table 6.2) and were very/somewhat proud of being Korean (81%, rank 4 in Table 6.3). Many Japanese identified with the nationality (92.1%, rank 3 in Table 6.2) but a smaller percentage (77.8%, rank 5 in Table 6.3) felt very/somewhat proud to be Japanese. This finding is similar for Taiwanese who identified rather strongly with their nationality (85%, rank 4 in Table 6.2) but were less sanguine about their national pride (64.4%, rank 7 in Table 6.3). Conversely, fewer Singaporeans identified with their nationality (84.3%, rank 5 in Table 6.2) but more were very/somewhat proud to be Singaporean (90.8%, rank 2 in Table 6.4). Hong Kongers did not identify with their nationality (44.8%, rank 7 in Table 6.2) and were not as proud of being Hong Kongers (74.2%, rank 6 in Table 6.3). Although the percentages for the respondents from China were not among the top three, the Chinese still came out strongly in terms of their national identification (84%, rank 6 in Table 6.2) and national pride (88.2%, rank 3 in Table 6.3). Interesting differences were noted when considering how the Asian identity was appropriated by respondents in the various countries (see Table 6.4). The Vietnamese (86.9%), Singaporeans (62.2%) and Taiwanese (58.9%) identified more strongly with being Asian. Japan was an exception where 54.6 percent of the respondents indicated that they do not identify particularly with any transnational group, and only 19.6 percent identified with being Asian, the lowest score among the Asian countries. It was also interesting to note that substantial cohorts of Chinese identified strongly with being Asian (41.7%) and not with any transnational group (35.1%). This dichotomy was also noted for South Koreans but in a slightly different manner as 31.5 percent identified themselves as being Asian, and another 31.8 percent identified themselves with their language group. Apart from the Asian identity, respondents could also choose to identify with a social group using more traditional markers of differentiation such as ethnicity, language and religion. In terms of ethnicity, the South Koreans

July 2, 2009

11:59

92

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch06

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

(20.4%), the Taiwanese (16.6%) and the Singaporeans (13.2%) were more willing to align themselves with those with a perceived sense of shared ancestry. For allegiance to language, the South Koreans (31.8%) and the Hong Kongers (24.2%) were most willing to identify with those who spoke Cantonese and Korean respectively. While the South Koreans appear to be strongly attached to their ethnicity and language, the Japanese did not express any strong sentiments about their ethnicity, language, and religion. Generally, across the board, there was minimal attachment to and identification with social groups based on one’s religion. Superiority of National Culture Singaporeans do not appear to be very ethnocentric when asked to express their views about whether Singapore’s traditional culture is superior to that of another country (see Table 6.5). When the percentages for “strongly agree” and “agree” were combined, about 32.3 percent expressed a strong sense of ethnocentrism while more than half did not (37.1% were in the middle, and 18.2% did not have a strong sense of ethnocentrism). The weak response from Singaporeans could be due to several reasons: First, Singapore is a multicultural society which has modernized very quickly. Table 6.5. Country

Our Country’s Traditional Culture is Superior to that of Other

Country

Strongly agree + Strongly Neither Strongly Don’t agree (%) agree Agree agree nor Disagree disagree know (rank) (%) (%) disagree (%) (%) (%) (%)

Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

32.3 (6) 59.2 (2) 26.2 (7) 49.2 (4) 72.7 (1) 49.9 (3) 40.7 (5)

3.0 14.9 2.1 10.8 22.7 8.1 8.4

29.3 44.4 24.1 38.4 50.0 41.7 32.3

37.1 30.5 43.0 42.1 19.5 33.0 32.9

15.3 7.9 27.7 5.7 6.3 13.6 20.0

2.9 1.4 2.0 0.9 0.3 2.2 3.9

12.4 1.1 1.1 2.2 1.3 1.4 2.5

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

National Identity

b773-ch06

93

The links to past traditions and heritage are not as strong as other Asian countries. Although the national language is Malay, it is not as widely used as in other countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Most Singaporeans use English and/or Mandarin instead. Second, it has become increasingly difficult to define what the “traditional” culture of Singapore is. Singapore has a mosaic of several dominant cultures. It is also a challenge to define the Singaporean identity. Third, Singaporeans are becoming more and more cosmopolitan and globalized. The cultural capital cache of being global is becoming more attractive and Singaporeans may be compelled to view and portray themselves as cosmopolitan global citizens. Vietnam (40.7%) and Hong Kong (26.2%) were closer to Singapore in terms of ethnocentrism. The statistics for Vietnam and Hong Kong were somewhat surprisingly as these two countries have a strong indigenous culture and language. In the case of Hong Kong, the dilution of ethnocentrism could be attributed to the influx of influences from mainland China. On the other hand, South Koreans were the most fervent about their culture (72.7%), followed by China (59.2%) and Taiwan (49.9%). For the South Koreans, they could be riding on their country’s economic success and the enhanced international reputation they have been enjoying in recent years. In a similar vein, China’s economic prowess has been globally acknowledged and there has been growing interest in Chinese traditions and culture as more people travel to China for business and leisure.

Restrictions on Foreign Workforce Singaporeans are generally concerned about national issues, especially those related to their economic interests. When there is a more clearly defined “other”, for example, migrant or foreign workers who are viewed as a threat to one’s livelihood, Singaporeans are more willing to make a stand about their rights. When their rice bowls are affected, Singaporeans are ready to defend their own economic interests. When the responses for “strongly agree” and “agree” are combined, a large majority (70.8%) felt that the government should restrict the inflow of foreign workforce to protect domestic people’s interests (see Table 6.6). Similarly, a stronger dissenting voice against foreign workers can be heard from the Hong Kongers (75.4%),

July 2, 2009

11:59

94

Table 6.6. Interests

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch06

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Restrictions on Foreign Workforce to Protect Domestic People’s

Country

Strongly agree + agree (%) (rank)

Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

70.8 (2) 40.5 (6) 75.4 (1) 39.1 (7) 42.2 (5) 69.7 (3) 67.7 (4)

Strongly agree Agree (%) (%) 26.4 12.1 34.4 8.8 6.7 30.2 22.7

44.4 28.5 41.0 30.3 35.5 39.6 45.0

Neither agree nor Strongly Don’t disagree Disagree disagree know (%) (%) (%) (%) 15.3 39.6 20.0 45.0 29.0 18.5 15.4

10.4 17.5 3.9 11.6 23.7 9.6 14.8

1.2 1.7 0.4 1.5 2.6 1.7 0.9

2.3 0.8 0.3 2.9 2.4 0.4 1.2

Taiwanese (69.7%) and Vietnamese (67.7%). In contrast, the South Koreans (42.2%), Chinese (40.5%) and Japanese (39.1%) were more accepting of foreign workers (see Table 6.6). Patriotic Education The communist countries of China and Vietnam highly favored the use of patriotic education to inculcate nationalistic values in their people. When the percentages of those who “strongly agree” and “agree” were combined, the Vietnamese (82.7%) and Chinese (80.7%) came out strongly in support of patriotic education (see Table 6.7). The South Koreans (65.9%) and the Taiwanese (60.5%) had moderate support, although these countries have capitalist economies and also pride themselves on their liberal democracies. Singapore (46.4%) and Hong Kong (46%) had less than half of their respondents supporting this initiative. Interestingly the Japanese had the lowest percentages of agreement (36.1%). This could be a reflection of the changing values in their society drawn from their historical lessons of the Second World War. The Hong Kongers (45.7%), the Japanese (44.1%), the Singaporeans (31.8%) and the Taiwanese (31.8%) also registered the higher percentages of respondents who were indifferent about patriotic education.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch06

National Identity

Table 6.7.

95

Emphasis on Patriotic Education to Breed Patriotism

Country

Strongly agree + agree (%) (rank)

Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan Vietnam

46.4 (5) 80.7 (2) 46.0 (6) 36.1 (7) 65.9 (3) 60.5 (4) 82.7 (1)

Strongly agree Agree (%) (%) 6.7 31.5 10.1 7.4 16.3 15.5 35.0

39.7 49.3 35.9 28.7 49.7 45.0 47.7

Neither agree nor Strongly Don’t disagree Disagree disagree know (%) (%) (%) (%) 31.8 17.2 45.7 44.1 26.4 31.8 14.8

5.6 0.9 6.8 12.6 5.9 6.1 1.8

2.8 0.4 1.2 4.5 0.5 0.5 0.4

13.4 0.5 0.3 2.8 1.3 1.1 0.3

Chapter Summary Compared to other East Asians, Singaporeans have a higher degree of English fluency as the language is used extensively in education, commerce and daily life. Singaporeans also have a strong sense of national identity, with the majority (84.3%) identifying themselves as “Singaporean”. Although this was not among the higher percentages among the other East Asian countries surveyed, Singaporeans exhibited considerable national pride (90.8%) compared to the other respondents. Together with the Vietnamese and the Taiwanese, Singaporeans (62.2%) were also open to appropriating the Asian identity. Some Singaporeans (13.2%) were however, more willing to align themselves with those with a perceived sense of shared ancestry. Singaporeans are not very ethnocentric and generally do not believe that their culture is superior to that of another country. However, the majority of Singaporeans (70.8%) were fervent about having the government restrict the inflow of foreign workforce to protect domestic people’s interests. This sentiment was also shared by Hong Kongers, Taiwanese and Vietnamese. In terms of patriotic education, the attitudes of Singaporeans (46.4%) are closer to those of the Hong Kongers who prefer not to use this means of inculcating nationalistic values. This is in contrast to communist countries like China and Vietnam which strongly endorsed such an educational policy.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

7 Democracy and Political Rights .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

There were many social and political issues covered in the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey. In this chapter, we focus on the issues of democracy and political rights such as the system of governance, involvement in political action, satisfaction with the scope of rights, views about political rights and the influence of media. Selective comparisons will also be made with regard to the other East Asian countries (excluding Vietnam). In Chapter 5, we discussed the aspirations Singaporean parents have for their children. “Becoming a powerful political leader” ranked second-last (2.4% for sons) and last (1.2% for daughters) among Singaporean parents when asked what they would like their child to be when s/he grows up. Compared to other ideals, political ambitions are not highly regarded dreams or goals for most Singaporean parents. The political party was the ninth most important social group (out of a list of thirteen groups) garnering only 11.5 percent support among Singaporean respondents. Other less popular groups were a club or hobby circle (10.3%), a labor union (6.8%) and an agricultural cooperative, commercial cooperative or industry group (3.4%). This is in contrast to the value placed on the family as the most important social group (see discussion on family values in Chapter 5). System of Governance Singaporeans preferred a democratic political system as evidenced by the high percentages of agreement that such a system would be “very good” 96

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Democracy and Political Rights

97

Table 7.1 System of Governance Please indicate for each system whether you think it would be very good, fairly good or bad for this country. System 1. Governance by a powerful leader without the restriction of parliament or elections. 2. A system whereby decisions affecting the country are made by experts (such as bureaucrats with expertise in a particular field) according to what they think is best for the country. 3. Military government. 4. A democratic political system.

Very good (%)

Fairly good (%)

Bad (%)

4.1

16.2

79.7

10.5

48.8

40.8

4.2

22.9

72.9

35.6

55.3

9.1

(35.6%) and “fairly good” (55.3%) (see Table 7.1). Although there was a general consensus in favor of democracy, Singaporeans also seemed open (10.5% and 48.8% for the “very good” and “fairly good” options respectively) towards “a system whereby decisions affecting the country are made by experts according to what they think is best for the country”. They were opposed to more totalitarian styles of government involving the military and/or a dictator-type leader. Involvement in Political Actions Singaporeans are rather apathetic with regard to their involvement in political action (see Table 7.2). Out of the three political actions polled, signing a petition was the only one that a third of Singaporeans (31.7%) might consider participating in, while a very small number (5.1%) have actually done so. An overwhelmingly majority would shy away from “joining in boycotts” (82.5%) or “attending lawful demonstrations” (77.6%). Few would consider being a lawful demonstrator (12.2%) while 8.2 percent might join

July 2, 2009

98

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 7.2 Involvement in Political Action (Singapore and other East Asian Countries, excluding Vietnam) Please indicate whether you have done any of the following forms of political action: Percentages Political action and likely engagement 1. Signing a Petition (a) Have Done (b) Might Do (c) Would Never Do 2. Joining in Boycotts (a) Have Done (b) Might Do (c) Would Never Do 3. Attending Lawful Demonstrations (a) Have Done (b) Might Do (c) Would Never Do

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

5.1 31.7 55.1

5.5 59.6 24.5

30.4 31.7 37.0

43.5 37.9 14.7

29.9 38.0 25.7

6.4 22.9 69.4

0.3 8.2 82.5

1.8 53.3 33.8

3.8 32.0 61.2

2.1 34.7 53.9

10.8 44.2 38.7

3.0 14.7 79.9

0.6 12.2 77.6

4.2 49.6 33.2

7.7 30.7 59.4

4.1 32.4 54.3

10.7 50.8 32.6

3.0 11.9 82.7

Note: SP = Singapore CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

a boycott. Compared to her East Asian neighbors, Singaporeans have the lowest participation rates in political actions (see the percentages for “Have Done” in Table 7.2). Singapore’s range was from 0.3 percent to 5.1 percent, which is closer to the range for China (1.8% to 5.5%) and Taiwan (3.0% to 6.4%). In contrast, respondents in South Korea (10.7% to 29.9%) Hong Kong (3.8% to 30.4%) and Japan (2.1% to 43.5%) were more politically active. Petitions were the most common political action across the East Asian countries, although the percentages were small for some countries (i.e., 5.1% for Singapore, 5.5% for China and 6.4% for Taiwan). While only 5.1 percent of Singaporeans have signed a petition, 29.9 percent of South Koreans, 30.4 percent of Hong Kongers and 43.5 percent of Japanese have done so. Compared to Singapore (55.1%), the only country that had a higher percentage of respondents who would never sign a petition was

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Democracy and Political Rights

99

Taiwan (69.4%). Surprisingly, people in China (59.6%) were the most receptive to engaging in this political action. For boycotts, the responses were diverse from a low of 33.8 percent of Chinese respondents who indicated that they would never participate in this political action to a high of 82.5 percent for Singaporeans. For lawful demonstrations, the range was similar with a low of 32.6 percent of South Koreans indicating that they would never participate in such a political action to a high of 82.7 percent for Taiwanese. South Koreans were most actively involved in boycotts and demonstrations although the percentages were relatively small (about 10% to 11%). Satisfaction with Scope of Rights Singaporeans were asked how satisfied they were with the current scope of a range of rights in their country on a scale of “1” (for “very satisfied) to “4” (for “very dissatisfied”). The lower means indicate greater satisfaction. As Table 7.3 Satisfaction with Scope of Rights How satisfied are you with the current scope of the following rights in your country? Rights 1. The right to vote 2. The right to participate in any kind of organization 3. The right to gather and demonstrate 4. The right to be informed about the work and functions of government 5. Freedom of speech 6. The right to criticize the government

VS (%)

SS (%)

SD (%)

VD (%)

Mean

53.6 22.2

41.5 65.7

4.3 10.6

0.6 1.4

1.52 1.91

7.4

40.3

41.2

11.1

2.56

13.6

56.9

21.4

8.1

2.24

9.5 2.8

47.2 28.8

33.0 40.8

10.3 27.7

2.44 2.93

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied.

July 2, 2009

100

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

shown in Table 7.3, Singaporeans were most satisfied with their “right to vote” (mean of 1.52) followed by their “right to participate in any kind of organization” (mean of 1.91). In the “very satisfied” column, Singaporeans indicated the highest percentage (53.6%) for the “right to vote”. In the “somewhat satisfied” column, the highest percentage (65.7%) was accorded to their satisfaction with their “right to participate in any kind of organization”. However, apart from these two rights which had means of less than two, the means were greater than two for the other four rights. In particular, Singaporeans were most dissatisfied with their “right to criticize the government” (mean of 2.93) and their “right to gather and demonstrate” (mean of 2.56). In the “very dissatisfied” column, Singaporeans indicated unhappiness over their “right to criticize the government” (the highest percentage of 27.7%). In the “somewhat dissatisfied” column, about four in ten Singaporeans were equally disgruntled about their “right to gather and demonstrate” (41.2%) and their “right to criticize the government” (40.8%). About four in ten Singaporeans (43.3%) also voiced their discontent about their right to “freedom of speech” (33% for “somewhat dissatisfied” and 10.3% for “very dissatisfied”). Although the mean and percentages were not as unfavorable with regard to their “right to be informed about the work and functions of government”, about three in ten Singaporeans still expressed some negative sentiment about this issue (21.4% for “somewhat dissatisfied” and 8.1% for “very dissatisfied”). As mentioned earlier, Singaporeans were most dissatisfied with their “right to criticize the government” (mean of 2.93) and their “right to gather and demonstrate” (mean of 2.56). In this section, we examined in greater demographic detail the question of “who are the Singaporeans who are unhappy about these issues?” Chi-square analyses were performed using various demographic variables (e.g., gender, marital status, age, income and education). In terms of satisfaction with the “right to gather and demonstrate” (see Table 7.4), the significant differences were for gender and income. Within the two gender groups, almost equal percentages were “somewhat satisfied” and “somewhat dissatisfied”. For example, 43.2 percent of females were “somewhat satisfied” and 41.6 percent of females were “somewhat dissatisfied”. However, there were more males (57.1%) among those who were “very dissatisfied” and also those who were

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Democracy and Political Rights

101

Table 7.4 Satisfaction with “Right to Gather and Demonstrate” (Demographic Analysis for Singapore) Demographics VS (%) Gender Male Female Income Low Medium High

SS (%)

SD (%)

VD (%)

Difference

56.9 (8.8) 44.1 (37.2) 47.3 (40.8) 57.1 (13.3) Chi-square = 7.592 43.1 (6.1) 55.9 (43.2) 52.7 (41.6) 42.9 (9.1) p < 0.05 22.6 (6.1) 30.3 (45.9) 27.5 (42.8) 12.4 (5.2) Chi-square = 34.601 38.7 (7.3) 39.8 (42.1) 39.3 (42.7) 26.8 (7.9) p < 0.000 38.7 (7.9) 30.0 (34.1) 33.1 (38.7) 60.8 (19.3)

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages denote the distribution of responses within a particular degree of satisfaction; percentages in parentheses denote the distribution of responses within a particular demographic grouping.

“very satisfied” (56.9%). Females were more likely to be “somewhat satisfied” (55.9%). For income, a higher percentage of those who were “very dissatisfied” came from the high income group (60.8%). Those from the medium income group comprised the largest proportion who registered moderate dissatisfaction (39.3% in the “somewhat dissatisfied” category). Looking within the income groupings, there were low percentages reported for the “very satisfied” category (ranging from 6.1% to 7.9%). Most responses across the three income groups were clustered around the “somewhat satisfied” (34.1% to 45.9%) and “somewhat dissatisfied” (38.7% to 42.8%) responses. However, 19.3 percent of those earning high incomes were “very dissatisfied”. With regard to satisfaction with the “right to criticize the government” (see Table 7.5), the significant differences were for age and income. The 40–49 years age group had the highest proportion of “very dissatisfied” responses (36.4%), followed by the 30–39 years age group (26.8%) and then the 20–29 years age group (18.0%). Those in their thirties registered the highest proportion of “somewhat dissatisfied” (30.1%) followed by those in their forties (25.7%), and those in their twenties (21.4%). Those in their fifties and sixties were generally more satisfied. For those who were “very dissatisfied”, about four in ten were from the high income group (41.7%)

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

102

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

with a similar proportion in the medium income group (39.9%) for the “somewhat dissatisfied” category. Tables 7.6a to 7.6f show how satisfied respondents from the East Asian countries were with various political rights. The percentages reported in these tables depict the distribution of responses for a particular right. Table 7.5 Satisfaction with“Right to Criticize the Government” (Demographic Analysis for Singapore) Demographics Age 20–29 years 30–29 years 40–49 years 50–59 years 60–69 years Income Low Medium High

VS (%)

SS (%)

SD (%)

20.0 (2.7) 24.0 (2.4) 20.0 (2.0) 28.0 (4.5) 8.0 (3.3)

21.5 (30.3) 25.0 (26.1) 23.8 (24.5) 20.0 (33.1) 9.6 (41.7)

21.4 (42.7) 30.1 (44.6) 25.7 (37.5) 16.5 (38.9) 6.2 (38.3)

VD (%)

Difference

18.0 (24.3) Chi-square = 26.8 (26.9) 21.855 36.4 (36.0) p < 0.039 14.8 (23.6) 4.0 (16.7)

28.0 (3.0) 33.7 (35.9) 26.0 (39.2) 21.1 (21.9) Chi-square = 40.0 (3.0) 35.7 (26.9) 39.9 (42.7) 37.2 (27.5) 13.125 32.0 (2.6) 30.6 (24.8) 34.1 (39.4) 41.7 (33.2) p < 0.041

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages denote the distribution of responses within a particular degree of satisfaction; percentages in parentheses denote the distribution of responses within a particular demographic grouping.

Table 7.6a Vietnam) Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan

Satisfaction with “Right to Vote” (East Asian Countries, excluding

VS (1)

SS (2)

SD (3)

VD (4)

(1 + 2) − (3 + 4) (rank)

51.8 16.2 13.8 27.2 22.3 26.1

40.1 39.8 67.1 59.4 68.0 56.0

4.3 28.3 16.3 9.4 7.1 14.5

0.6 15.2 1.4 1.0 1.3 2.4

87.0 (1) 12.5 (6) 63.2 (5) 76.2 (3) 81.9 (2) 65.2 (4)

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Democracy and Political Rights

103

Table 7.6b Satisfaction with “Right to Participate in Any Kind of Organization” (East Asian Countries, excluding Vietnam) Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan

VS (1)

SS (2)

SD (3)

VD (4)

(1 + 2) − (3 + 4) (rank)

20.7 7.6 14.5 20.8 11.9 16.2

61.4 42.8 70.1 63.9 68.7 52.6

9.9 35.3 13.8 8.4 15.4 25.2

1.4 12.9 1.6 6.4 1.3 3.0

70.8 (1) 2.2 (6) 69.2 (3) 69.9 (2) 63.9 (4) 40.6 (5)

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

Table 7.6c Satisfaction with “Right to Gather and Demonstrate” (East Asian Countries, excluding Vietnam) Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan

VS (1)

SS (2)

SD (3)

VD (4)

(1 + 2) − (3 + 4) (rank)

6.3 8.7 12.4 13.2 5.4 12.3

34.3 29.1 62.7 56.8 53.1 46.2

35.1 36.5 23.2 13.8 30.5 31.8

9.4 17.0 0.9 1.6 5.8 7.0

−3.9 (5) −15.7 (6) 51.0 (2) 54.6 (1) 22.2 (3) 19.7 (4)

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

Table 7.6d Satisfaction with “Right to be Informed about the Work and Functions of Government” (East Asian Countries, excluding Vietnam) Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan

VS (1)

SS (2)

SD (3)

VD (4)

(1 + 2) − (3 + 4) (rank)

12.4 6.5 4.6 10.8 7.8 6.4

52.2 25.3 47.6 45.6 43.6 36.0

19.7 39.7 41.1 29.3 36.6 42.3

7.4 27.1

37.5 (1) −35.0 (6) 11.1 (3) 21.7 (2) 7.5 (4) −10.3 (5)

5.4 7.3 10.4

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

July 2, 2009

11:59

104

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 7.6e Satisfaction with “Freedom of Speech” (East Asian Countries, excluding Vietnam) Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan

VS (1)

SS (2)

SD (3)

VD (4)

(1 + 2) − (3 + 4) (rank)

8.6 19.5 13.0 20.6 7.5 19.8

42.7 46.6 63.6 55.4 55.7 53.0

29.9 22.3 21.3 16.6 30.0 22.1

9.3 10.6 2.0 5.7 4.8 3.5

12.1 (6) 33.2 (4) 53.3 (2) 53.7 (1) 28.4 (5) 47.2 (3)

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

Table 7.6f Satisfaction with “Right to Criticize the Government” (East Asian Countries, excluding Vietnam) Country Singapore China Hong Kong Japan South Korea Taiwan

VS (1)

SS (2)

SD (3)

VD (4)

(1 + 2) − (3 + 4) (rank)

2.8 8.6 9.4 16.0 7.4 16.1

25.1 25.4 60.7 49.4 54.4 47.7

35.5 38.4 27.3 21.0 29.0 26.8

24.1 23.1 2.2 9.6 5.7 6.8

−31.7 (6) −27.5 (5) 40.6 (1) 34.8 (2) 27.1 (4) 30.2 (3)

Note: VS = very satisfied, SS = somewhat satisfied, SD = somewhat dissatisfied, VD = very dissatisfied. Percentages may not add up to 100% because of missing values and “Don’t Know” responses.

The overall satisfaction score can be calculated by subtracting the percentages of negative responses (“very dissatisfied” and “somewhat dissatisfied”) from the percentages of positive responses (“very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied”). These scores are reflected in the last column of Tables 7.6a to 7.6f. Similar to Singaporeans, the South Koreans (81.9%) and Japanese (76.2%) registered high satisfaction scores with regard to their right to vote (see Table 7.6a). Generally, scores were above 60 percent except for the Chinese, who were extremely unhappy about this issue (12.5%). Singaporeans again led the satisfaction scores for the “right to participate in any kind of organization” (see Table 7.6b), followed by the Japanese, Hong Kongers

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Democracy and Political Rights

b773-ch07

105

and South Koreans whose scores were closely clustered. In this respect, the Chinese had even lower satisfaction percentages (2.2%). From the more positive scenarios depicted earlier, Tables 7.6c and 7.6d highlight the frustration East Asians felt about their “right to gather and demonstrate” and “to be informed about the works and functions of government”. The satisfaction scores in these two tables were considerably lower than those reported in Tables 7.6a and 7.6b. In terms of satisfaction with the right to gather and demonstrate (see Table 7.6c), the Japanese and Hong Kongers, ranked 1 and 2 respectively, were the only two countries with scores higher than 50 percent. In stark contrast to the highly favorable scores in Tables 7.6a and 7.6b, Singaporeans (−3.9%) joined the Chinese (−15.7%) in voicing their unhappiness about this political right. In terms of satisfaction with the right to be informed about the work and functions of government (see Table 7.6d), the Singaporeans and Japanese who ranked 1 and 2 respectively, were the only two countries with scores higher than 20 percent. The Taiwanese (−10.3%) and the Chinese (−35.0%) were very disgruntled about this political right as reflected in their scores. In the final two comparisons (see Tables 7.6e and 7.6f ) on “freedom of speech” and the “right to criticize the government”, Japan and Hong Kong shared the top two ranks while Singapore was ranked the lowest in satisfaction scores for both of these rights. The highest ranking for China (rank 4, 33.2%), across the six political rights discussed, was for the satisfaction with “freedom on speech” (see Table 7.6e). Generally, Japan came out very strongly in the satisfaction scores with regard to the six political rights. For five out of six times, Japan was ranked 1 or 2. The lowest ranking of 3 (76.2%) was for the “right to vote”. Hong Kong also had a robust record and was ranked in the top three for 5 out of 6 political rights. The lowest ranking of 5 (63.2%) was also for the “right to vote”. Taiwan and South Korea fared moderately well with middle-range rankings and scores. China had the worst record, being ranked last four out of six times. Singapore had a highly variable record with ratings at both ends of the spectrum. Singapore had top accolades for satisfaction with the “right to vote”, the “right to participate in any kind of organization” and the “right to be informed about the work and functions of government”. However, the satisfaction ratings were the worst for “freedom of speech” and the “right to criticize the government”.

July 2, 2009

11:59

106

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Views about Political Rights Singaporeans were asked for their agreement with certain statements about their political rights on a scale of “1” (for “strongly agree”) to “5” (for “strongly disagree”). The lower means indicate a greater degree of agreement with the statement. It would also be useful to consider the percentages of agreement with each statement. However, care should be taken to interpret the degree of agreement and the ensuing implications, taking in account the critical issues raised in a particular statement. As shown in Table 7.7a, almost all Singaporeans “strongly agreed” and “agreed” that “citizens have a duty to vote in elections”. Although many Singaporeans may not have had a chance to vote in recent elections, this is a duty that Singaporeans have taken very seriously. Voting is compulsory in Singapore and there are serious consequences for failing to execute this duty. This high degree of agreement about voting is congruous with their satisfaction about their right to vote (please refer again to Table 7.3). About half of Singaporeans “disagreed” (50.4%) and 15.7 percent “strongly disagreed” with the statement that “since so many people vote in elections,

Table 7.7a Political Rights Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Statement Citizens have a duty to vote in elections Since so many people vote in elections, it really doesn’t matter whether I vote or not

Strongly agree Agree (%) (%)

Neither agree nor disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Strongly disagree (%)

Mean

51.9

45.9

1.5

0.7

0.0

1.51

1.9

13.9

18.1

50.4

15.7

3.64

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Democracy and Political Rights

107

it really doesn’t matter whether I vote or not.” They felt that their votes mattered and that voting was not a responsibility to be taken lightly. While Singaporeans took the duty of voting seriously, they were more ambivalent about the instrumentality of their votes. Their sense of agency is captured in the statements about whether they believed that they had the power to influence policy or actions and whether they felt they understood what was going on in the political realm (see Table 7.7b). A combined 56.3 percent of Singaporeans (12.8% “strongly agree” and 43.5% “agree”) felt a diminished sense of political empowerment. In terms of political awareness, close to 50 percent of Singaporeans agreed (40.2%) and strongly agreed (8.4%) that politics was too complicated for them. Close to a quarter of responses were also in the “neither agree nor disagree” category, which may indicate some political apathy. Table 7.7c shows the agreement with statements that reflect the respondents’ opinions about government officials. Notably, there were larger Table 7.7b Political Rights Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Statement Generally speaking people like me don’t have the power to influence government policy or actions Politics and government are so complicated that sometimes I don’t understand what’s happening

Strongly agree Agree (%) (%)

Neither agree nor disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Strongly disagree (%)

Mean

12.8

43.5

23.4

18.9

1.4

2.52

8.4

40.2

26.9

22.9

1.6

2.69

July 2, 2009

11:59

108

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 7.7c Political Rights Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements:

Statement There is widespread corruption among those who govern the country Generally speaking, the people who are elected to the Singapore Parliament stop thinking about the public once they’re elected Government officials pay little attention to what citizens like me think

Strongly agree Agree (%) (%)

Neither agree nor disagree (%)

Disagree (%)

Strongly disagree (%)

Mean

2.4

13.3

30.0

44.5

9.8

3.46

6.5

23.0

35.8

32.1

2.5

3.01

7.4

32.9

32.7

25.4

1.5

2.81

percentages (30% and above for “neither agree nor disagree”) of respondents who did not have a stand on these issues. The statement “There is widespread corruption among those who govern the country” measures the people’s perception of the integrity of the government. In this respect, many Singaporeans believed in the honesty of their government. More than four in ten “disagreed” (44.5%) about corruption being a rampant social-political problem. Perceptions about the engagement of the government with the people were less favorable. Close to 30 percent of Singaporeans (6.5% “strongly agree” and 23.0% “agree”) felt that the government had become indifferent to their concerns after they were elected. Another 40 percent felt that the

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Democracy and Political Rights

109

government officials were not sympathetic to their views (7.4% “strongly agree” and 32.9% “agree”). The Influence of Media Respondents in the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey were asked to choose up to five media (out of a list of 16 options) that were considered influential in shaping their views on social and political issues. According to Table 7.8a, for Singaporeans, the TV media is most influential (92.6%, rank 1), followed by newspaper articles (89.2%, rank 2). Radio came in at about 27 percentage points lower (63.6%, rank 3). Conversations with campaigners (44.9%) and TV advertisements (43.6%) were rather similar in their influence, while Internet news was ranked sixth (at 31.5%). Across all the East Asian countries, TV programs and newspaper articles were the two most influential forms of media (see Table 7.8b). Radio Table 7.8a The Influence of Media When you shape your opinions about social and political issues, which of the following media influence your opinions most? Media 1. TV programs 2. TV advertisements 3. Radio programs 4. Radio advertisements 5. Newspaper articles 6. Newspaper advertisements 7. Magazine articles 8. Magazine advertisements 9. Books 10. Internet news 11. Internet bulletin boards/mailing lists 12. Internet ads 13. Leaflets/brochures 14. Conversations with friends and neighbors 15. Conversations with campaigners 16. Meetings/conferences

Percentage (rank) 92.6 (1) 43.6 (5) 63.6 (3) 21.0 89.2 (2) 23.7 22.5 2.9 10.9 31.5 (6) 6.4 2.6 13.4 44.9 (4) 8.9 6.4

July 2, 2009

11:59

110

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Table 7.8b The Influence of Media (Singapore and Six East Asian Countries) Percentages (rank) Media 1. TV programs 2. Newspaper articles 3. Radio programs 4. Conversations with friends and neighbors 5. TV ads 6. Magazine articles 7. Internet news 8. Books

SP

CH

HK

JP

SK

TW

VN

92.6 (1) 91.8 (1) 92.0 (1) 89.8 (1) 93.9 (1) 89.9 (1) 89.1 (1) 89.2 (2) 72.5 (2) 69.7 (2) 83.6 (2) 75.0 (2) 57.9 (2) 73.3 (2) 63.6 (3) 46.9 (3) 62.2 (3)

24.9 (6) 21.9 (5) 50.4 (3)

44.9 (4) 43.5 (4) 33.0 (6) 36.4 (3) 56.3 (3) 45.1 (3) 41.3 (4)

43.6 (5) 38.5 (5) 51.5 (4) 39.9 (5) 37.8 (4) 36.4 (5) 29.9 (6) 35.1 (5) 26.1 (4) 18.4 (6) 33.2 (6) 31.5 (6)

23.2 (6) 47.9 (4) 25.6 (5)

Note: SP = Singapore CH = China, HK = Hong Kong, JP = Japan, SK = South Korea, TW = Taiwan, VN = Vietnam.

programs were the third most important media in Singapore, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam, whereas a more informal source of influence (that of conversations with friends and neighbors) prevailed in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In Hong Kong and Taiwan, TV ads were also considered important vehicles of influence (rank 4). The Japanese preferred magazine articles (rank 4) while the Koreans turned to the Internet for their news (rank 4). The Japanese were the only respondents to indicate books as a credible source and an influential form of media, and to disregard TV ads and radio programs. Singaporeans and Koreans were equally dismissive of magazine articles. Chapter Summary Becoming a powerful political leader was not an ambition most Singaporean parents harbored for their children. Hence a political party was not among the top social groups that Singaporeans considered as important in

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Democracy and Political Rights

b773-ch07

111

their lives. Singaporeans were generally in favor of a democratic political system and did not tolerate a dictatorship or military form of governance. However, Singaporeans were most apathetic when it comes to involvement in political actions, whether in the form of signing a petition, joining in boycotts or attending lawful demonstrations. Singaporeans consistently ranked last among her five East Asian neighbors (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) in all three areas of political involvement. Singapore and her five East Asian neighbors performed differently in terms of satisfaction with the scope of political rights in six areas: right to vote, right to participate in any kind of organization, right to gather and demonstrate, right to be informed about the work and functions of government, freedom of speech, and right to criticize the government. Japan emerged as the country that scored strongly in the satisfaction scores ranking either 1 or 2 in five out of the six areas. Hong Kong came in second, being ranked top three in five out of six areas. China had the worst record, ranking last in four out of six areas. However, Singapore had a mixed bag of rankings. She scored top rank in satisfaction with the right to vote, the right to participate in any kind of organization, and the right to be informed about the works and functions of the government. However, she ranked lowest among all in freedom of speech and the right to criticize the government. Further demographic analysis within the Singaporean sample highlighted some significant differences across gender, age and income with regard to satisfaction with certain political rights. Although Singaporeans were satisfied with their right to vote and view voting as an important political right, they were nevertheless ambivalent about the instrumentality of their votes. More than half of Singaporeans surveyed deemed politics as too complicated for them, and this may explain their lack of interest in political involvement. While many Singaporeans believed in the honesty of their government, some (30%) felt that the government had become indifferent to their concerns after they were elected, and others (40%) felt that the government officials were not sympathetic to their views. Television programs, newspaper articles, radio programs, conversations with friends and neighbors, and television advertisements emerged as the top five media that were considered by Singaporeans to be influential in shaping their views. The top three media were similarly chosen by countries like

July 2, 2009

112

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch07

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

China, Hong Kong, and Vietnam. However, for Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, conversations with friends and neighbors was the third top media. This may reflect the prevalence of personal connectivity in these countries. Also, it was interesting to see that the Internet news was the fourth most highly ranked source of influence for South Korea, but not among the main sources for all other countries, except for its sixth position in Japan and Singapore. This may imply that Japan, Singapore and South Korea are more globally connected than the rest of the East Asian countries.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch08

8 Determinants of Wellbeing .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

To examine how demographic and non-demographic factors contributed to the general wellbeing of Singaporeans, we conducted regression analyses as follows. The indicators of wellbeing, namely, happiness, enjoyment, achievement and the overall quality of life were used as dependent variables. There were a total of 21 independent variables. Four were demographic variables (gender, age, education and income). Seventeen were non-demographic variables (fluency in English, religiosity, satisfaction with the personal life sphere, satisfaction with the interpersonal life sphere, satisfaction with the public life sphere, national pride, ethnocentrism, and how well the government is dealing with different issues in the country). For the demographic variables, marital status was taken in account by running the regression analyses separately for the whole sample and the married respondents’ sample. For the married respondents’ sample, the personal life sphere included marriage while this domain was excluded for the whole sample. Married respondents formed the bulk of the Singaporean sample (n = 724, 69.7% of sample). Although religious group was used as a demographic variable for comparisons when we discussed standards of living and satisfaction with life domains (Chapter 2); priorities in life, top worries and government spending (Chapter 3); happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and overall quality of life (Chapter 4); and value orientations and lifestyles (Chapter 5), religious group was not included as a demographic (independent) variable in the regression analyses as we had already included

113

July 2, 2009

114

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch08

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

a question on religiosity as a non-demographic (independent) variable (i.e., “how often do you pray or mediate?”). Although the previous chapters had included discussions on more nondemographic variables than the 17 listed above, the choices for regression were constrained by the fact that responses to many of the other questions such as priorities in life and top worries were captured as nominal rather than scale or interval data. For considerations of parsimony, we used the three life spheres instead of the 16 life domains which make up these life spheres. Based on a factor analysis of the 16 life domains, three coherent groupings of life domains emerged (see Table 8.1) as follows: (1) Personal Life Sphere (standard of living, household income, health, education and job) (2) Interpersonal

Table 8.1.

Distinguishing Three Life Spheres from 16 Life Domains Factors Personal

Standard of living Household income Health Education Job Public safety Environment Welfare system Democratic system Housing Friendships Marriage Neighbors Family life Leisure Spiritual life

Public

Interpersonal

h2

0.58 0.70 0.65 0.41 0.71 0.69 0.65

0.41 0.64 0.55 0.64 0.57 0.63 0.64 0.67 0.64 0.39 0.53 0.58 0.34 0.62 0.59 0.52

0.48 0.76 0.63 0.77 0.71 0.76 0.76 0.78 0.77

Note: The reported loadings were from a principal components solution with varimax rotation using a listwise deletion. Loadings of greater than 0.40 were reported.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Determinants of Wellbeing

b773-ch08

115

Life Sphere (housing, friendships, neighbors, family life, leisure and spiritual life) and (3) Public Life Sphere (public safety, environment, welfare system and democratic system). The personal life sphere comprises domains that influence a person’s sense of subjective wellbeing in terms of being healthy, employed, and possessing sufficient financial resources. The public life sphere contains domains that contribute to a pleasant living environment in one’s society. The interpersonal life highlights the various relationships that give emotional meaning and support to a person (such as one’s spouse, family, friends, neighbors and religious community). The sense of national pride was measured by asking respondents “How proud are you of being Singaporean?” Ethnocentrism was indicated by the response to the question “Singapore’s traditional culture is superior to that of other country”. The ten areas that the government was assessed for its effectiveness were the economy, political corruption, human rights, unemployment, crime, the quality of public services, the increase of immigration, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, and environmental problems. In the following sections, we discuss the determinants of happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life for the whole sample and the married respondents’ sample by examining the impact of demographic and non-demographic variables. The statistics for the whole sample and the married respondents’ sample are reported respectively in Tables 8.2 and 8.3. Determinants of Happiness For the whole sample (see Table 8.2), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ happiness score was significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.354, Fvalue = 15.89, p = 0.000). However, none of the demographic variables had an independent and significant impact on happiness. The non-demographic variable “Satisfaction with Interpersonal Life” had the most significant and positive impact on happiness (standardized beta = 0.262, p < 0.000), followed by variables like “Satisfaction with Personal Life” (standardized beta = 0.253, p < 0.000), “How Proud Are You of Being a Singaporean” (standardized beta = 0.228, p < 0.000), “How Well the Government is Dealing with Ethnic Conflict” (standardized beta = 0.124, p < 0.051), and “Fluency in English” (standardized beta = 0.090, p < 0.034).

0.051 (n.s.)

0.213 (0.000) −0.018 (n.s.)

Dependent Variable: Overall Quality of Life

1.661 (0.000) −0.028 (n.s.) −0.041 (n.s.) −0.020 (n.s.) −0.125 (0.006) −0.027 (n.s.) −0.021 (n.s.)

0.544 (0.013) −0.041 (n.s.) 0.013 (n.s.) −0.029 (n.s.) −0.085 (0.034) 0.041 (n.s.) 0.004 (n.s.)

0.218 (0.000)

0.283 (0.000)

−0.011 (n.s.)

9in x 6in

0.253 (0.000)

0.436 (n.s.) −0.040 (n.s.) 0.022 (n.s.) −0.064 (n.s.) −0.041 (n.s.) 0.030 (n.s.) 0.004 (n.s.)

Dependent Variable: Achievement

11:59

−0.466∗ (n.s.) −0.031 (n.s.) 0.047 (n.s.) 0.008 (n.s.) −0.042 (n.s.) 0.090 (0.034) 0.024 (n.s.)

Dependent Variable: Enjoyment

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

0.012 (n.s.)

0.202 (0.000)

0.076 (n.s.)

0.226 (0.000)

0.228 (0.000)

0.146 (0.000)

0.113 (0.007)

0.204 (0.000)

0.004 (n.s.)

0.000 (n.s.)

−0.022 (n.s.)

−0.007 (n.s.)

0.036 (n.s.)

−0.024 (n.s.)

0.003 (n.s.)

0.008 (n.s.)

(Continued )

b773-ch08

0.262 (0.000)

B-773

Constant Gender Age Education Household income Fluency in English How often do you pray or meditate? Satisfaction with personal life Satisfaction with public life Satisfaction with interpersonal life How proud are you of being Singaporean? Singapore’s traditional culture is superior to that of other country. How well do you think your government is dealing with the economy?

Dependent Variable: Happiness

July 2, 2009

Independent Variables:

116

Table 8.2. Impact of Demographic and Non-demographic Variables on Happiness, Enjoyment, Achievement, and Overall Quality of Life for Whole Sample

Dependent Variable: Enjoyment

Dependent Variable: Achievement

Dependent Variable: Overall Quality of Life

0.033 (n.s.)

0.034 (n.s.)

−0.037 (n.s.)

0.014 (n.s.)

0.048 (n.s.)

0.008 (n.s.)

0.054 (n.s.)

0.065 (n.s.)

0.027 (n.s.)

0.060 (n.s.)

−0.074 (n.s.)

0.043 (n.s.)

0.019 (n.s.)

−0.009 (n.s.)

−0.038 (n.s.)

0.031 (n.s.)

0.102 (0.026)

0.036 (n.s.)

b773-ch08

117

(Continued )

B-773

0.017 (n.s.)

9in x 6in

0.032 (n.s.)

Determinants of Wellbeing

How well do you think your government is dealing with political corruption? How well do you think your government is dealing with the human rights issue? How well do you think your government is dealing with unemployment? How well do you think your government is dealing with crime? How well do you think your government is dealing with the quality of public services?

Dependent Variable: Happiness

(Continued)

11:59

Independent Variables:

July 2, 2009

Table 8.2.

0.039 (n.s.)

0.014 (n.s.)

−0.028 (n.s.)

0.012 (n.s.)

0.124 (0.051)

0.025 (n.s.)

−0.046 (n.s.)

0.047 (n.s.)

−0.086 (n.s.)

0.022 (n.s.)

−0.035 (n.s.)

−0.044 (n.s.)

−0.038 (n.s.)

−0.086 (n.s.)

−0.061 (n.s.)

−0.074 (n.s.)

0.226

∗ Standardized coefficients, numbers in bracket indicate significance level, n.s. = not significant.

0.161

0.340

b773-ch08

0.354

B-773

Dependent Variable: Overall Quality of Life

9in x 6in

Dependent Variable: Achievement

11:59

Dependent Variable: Enjoyment

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

How well do you think your government is dealing with the increase of immigration? How well do you think your government is dealing with ethnic conflict? How well do you think your government is dealing with religious conflict? How well do you think your government is dealing with the environmental problems? R-square

Dependent Variable: Happiness

(Continued)

July 2, 2009

Independent Variables:

118

Table 8.2.

July 2, 2009

Table 8.3. Impact of Demographic and Non-demographicVariables on Happiness, Enjoyment,Achievement, and Overall Quality of Life for Married Sample

1.916 (0.000) −0.043 (n.s.) −0.094 (n.s.) −0.009 (n.s.) −0.151 (0.009) −0.032 (n.s.) 0.008 (n.s.) 0.201 (0.001) 0.010 (n.s.) 0.038 (n.s.) 0.070 (n.s.)

0.553 (0.042) −0.035 (n.s.) −0.025 (n.s.) −0.015 (n.s.) −0.126 (0.017) 0.075 (n.s.) 0.060 (n.s.) 0.295 (0.000) 0.045 (n.s.) 0.159 (0.006) 0.138 (0.003)

0.306 (n.s.) −0.028 (n.s.) −0.010 (n.s.) −0.064 (n.s.) −0.090 (n.s.) 0.083 (n.s.) 0.080(n.s.) 0.187 (0.002) 0.025 (n.s.) 0.145 (0.019) 0.091 (n.s.)

0.016 (n.s.)

0.056 (n.s.)

−0.015 (n.s.)

0.022 (n.s.)

−0.048 (n.s.)

−0.002 (n.s.)

0.024 (n.s.)

0.008 (n.s.)

0.013 (n.s.)

0.001 (n.s.)

0.099 (0.040) −0.018 (n.s.)

119

(Continued )

b773-ch08

−0.564∗ (n.s.) −0.015 (n.s.) 0.041 (n.s.) 0.031 (n.s.) −0.063 (n.s.) 0.130 (0.009) 0.061 (n.s.) 0.316 (0.000) 0.072 (n.s.) 0.199 (0.000) 0.167 (0.000)

B-773

Dependent Variable: Overall Quality of Life

9in x 6in

Dependent Variable: Achievement

Determinants of Wellbeing

Constant Gender Age Education Household income Fluency in English How often do you pray or meditate? Satisfaction with personal life Satisfaction with Public life Satisfaction with Interpersonal life How proud are you of being Singaporean? Singapore’s traditional culture is superior to that of other country. How well do you think your government is dealing with the economy? How well do you think your government is dealing with political corruption?

Dependent Variable: Enjoyment

11:59

Independent Variables:

Dependent Variable: Happiness

−0.036 (n.s.)

0.087 (n.s.)

0.039 (n.s.)

0.063 (n.s.)

0.102 (n.s.)

0.089 (n.s.)

0.105 (0.048)

−0.099 (0.046)

0.038 (n.s.)

−0.018 (n.s.)

−0.052 (n.s.)

0.056 (n.s.)

0.044 (n.s.)

−0.017 (n.s.)

−0.107 (0.05)

−0.032 (n.s.)

0.019 (n.s.)

−0.072 (n.s.)

−0.028 (n.s.)

−0.031 (n.s.)

0.007 (n.s.)

0.122 (n.s.)

−0.029 (n.s.)

0.038 (n.s.)

−0.027 (n.s.)

−0.100 (n.s.)

−0.063 (n.s.)

−0.077 (n.s.)

0.352

0.198

∗ Standardized coefficients, numbers in bracket indicate significance level, n.s.=not significant.

0.150 (0.006)

0.160

−0.036 (n.s.) 0.062 (n.s.)

0.308

b773-ch08

0.047 (n.s.)

B-773

Dependent Variable: Overall Quality of Life

9in x 6in

Dependent Variable: Achievement

11:59

Dependent Variable: Enjoyment

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

How well do you think your government is dealing with the human rights issue? How well do you think your government is dealing with unemployment? How well do you think your government is dealing with crime? How well do you think your government is dealing with the quality of public services? How well do you think your government is dealing with the increase of immigration? How well do you think your government is dealing with ethnic conflict? How well do you think your government is dealing with religious conflict? How well do you think your government is dealing with the environmental problems? R-square

Dependent Variable: Happiness

120

Independent Variables:

(Continued)

July 2, 2009

Table 8.3.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Determinants of Wellbeing

b773-ch08

121

For the married sample (see Table 8.3), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ happiness score was equally significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.352, F-value = 10.582, p = 0.000). Similarly, none of the demographic variables had an independent and significant impact on happiness. The nondemographic variable “Satisfaction with Personal Life” now had the most significant and positive impact on happiness (standardized beta = 0.316, p < 0.000), followed by variables like “Satisfaction with Interpersonal Life” (standardized beta = 0.199, p < 0.000), “How Proud Are You of Being a Singaporean” (standardized beta = 0.167, p < 0.000), “Fluency in English” (standardized beta = 0.130, p < 0.009), and “How Well the Government is Dealing with the Economy” (standardized beta = 0.099, p < 0.040), while “How Well the Government is Dealing with Crime” had a significant but negative impact on happiness (standardized beta = −0.0099, p < 0.046).

Determinants of Enjoyment For the whole sample (see Table 8.2), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ enjoyment score was fairly significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.226, Fvalue = 8.449, p = 0.000). As in the case for happiness, none of the demographic variables had an independent and significant impact on enjoyment. Among the non-demographic variables, “Satisfaction with Personal Life” had the most significant and positive impact on enjoyment (standardized beta = 0.213, p < 0.000), followed by variables like “Satisfaction with Interpersonal Life” (standardized beta = 0.202, p < 0.000), and “How Proud Are You of Being a Singaporean” (standardized beta = 0.146, p < 0.000). For the married sample (see Table 8.3), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ enjoyment score was slightly significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.198, F-value = 4.938, p = 0.000). Similarly, none of the demographic variables had an independent and significant impact on enjoyment. Among the non-demographic variables, only the two life domain satisfaction variables “Satisfaction with Personal Life” (standardized beta = 0.187,

July 2, 2009

122

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch08

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

p < 0.002) and “Satisfaction with Interpersonal Life” (standardized beta = 0.145, p < 0.019) had a significant and positive impact on enjoyment. Determinants of Achievement For the whole sample (see Table 8.2), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ achievement was slightly significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.161, F-value = 5.583, p = 0.000). Unlike the scenarios for happiness and enjoyment, one of the demographic variables had a significant but negative impact on achievement: household income (standardized beta = −0.125, p < 0.006). Among the non-demographic variables, “Satisfaction with Personal Life” had the most significant and positive impact on achievement (standardized beta = 0.218, p < 0.000), followed by variables like “How Proud Are You of Being a Singaporean” (standardized beta = 0.113, p < 0.007) and “How Well the Government is Dealing with the Quality of Public Services” (standardized beta = 0.102, p < 0.026). For the married sample (see Table 8.3), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ achievement score was similarly slightly significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.160, F-value = 3.814, p = 0.000). Similarly, only one of the demographic variables had a significant but negative impact on achievement: household income (standardized beta = −0.151, p < 0.009). Among the non-demographic variables, the life domain satisfaction variable of “Satisfaction with Personal Life” (standardized beta = 0.201, p < 0.001) had a significant and positive impact on achievement. In addition, “How Well the Government is Dealing with the Quality of Public Services” (standardized beta = 0.150, p < 0.006) had a positive and significant effect, while in contrast, there was a negative and significant effect for “How Well the Government is Dealing with the Increase in Immigration” (standardized beta = −0.107, p < 0.05). Determinants of the Overall Quality of Life We computed a variable called “Overall Quality of Life” which comprises the combined average scores for the Happiness, Enjoyment and

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Determinants of Wellbeing

b773-ch08

123

Achievement variables. For the whole sample (see Table 8.2), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ Overall Quality of Life was significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.340, F-value = 14.970, p = 0.000). Only one of the demographic variables had a significant but negative impact on achievement: household income (standardized beta = −0.085, p < 0.034). Among the non-demographic variables, “Satisfaction with Personal Life” had the most significant and positive impact on achievement (standardized beta = 0.283, p < 0.000), followed by variables like “Satisfaction with Interpersonal Life” (standardized beta = 0.226, p < 0.000), and “How Proud Are You of Being a Singaporean” (standardized beta = 0.204, p < 0.000). For the married sample (see Table 8.3), the combined impact of the demographic and non-demographic variables on Singaporeans’ overall quality of life score was similarly significant (the R-square for the multiple regression was 0.308, F-value = 8.913, p = 0.000). Similarly, only one of the demographic variables had a significant but negative impact on achievement: household income (standardized beta = −0.126, p < 0.017). Among the non-demographic variables, “Satisfaction with Personal Life” (standardized beta = 0.295, p < 0.000) had the most significant and positive impact on achievement, followed by “Satisfaction with Interpersonal Life” (standardized beta = 0.159, p < 0.006), “How Proud Are You of Being a Singaporean” (standardized beta = 0.138, p < 0.003) and “How Well the Government is Dealing with Unemployment” (standardized beta = 0.105, p < 0.048). Chapter Summary The regression results appeared to be stronger for Happiness and Overall Quality of Life, as shown by the R-square coefficients ranging from 0.308 to 0.354. The weakest results were for Achievement (R-square coefficients of 0.161 for the whole sample and 0.160 for the sample of married respondents). Generally, demographic variables do not exert a major influence on a person’s level of happiness, enjoyment and achievement. The one exception was a small negative relationship between household income and achievement, and between household income and overall quality of life.

July 2, 2009

124

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch08

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

This seems to imply that those who are richer do not necessarily feel that they have achieved a lot in life or feel more contented with their overall quality of life. This relationship held for the whole sample as well as for the sample of married respondents. Apart from demographic variables, other non-demographic variables were utilized in the regression analyses to examine their effect on the general wellbeing of Singaporeans. Out of the eight non-demographic variables, two of them (religiosity and ethnocentrism) had no effect on happiness, enjoyment, achievement and the overall quality of life of Singaporeans. On the other hand, a person’s fluency in English had a positive effect on one’s happiness for the whole sample and the sample of married respondents. Satisfaction with one’s personal life sphere (which includes standard of living, household income, health, education and job) was a positive contributor to a person’s happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life. Satisfaction with one’s interpersonal life sphere (which includes housing, friendships, neighbors, family life, leisure and spiritual life) also boosted one’s sense of happiness, enjoyment and overall quality of life. There were no significant effects associated with satisfaction with one’s public life sphere (which includes public safety, environment, welfare system and democratic system). These findings were similar for both the whole sample and the sample of married respondents. Being proud of one’s Singaporean identity was a positive contributor to a person’s happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life. However, for married respondents, it only contributed to their sense of happiness and overall quality of life. The perceptions regarding the competency of the government had varying effects on Singaporeans’ happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life. Generally, the performance of the government in various areas had a minimal impact for the whole sample (two out of ten areas) but more of an influence for the sample of married respondents (five out of ten areas). For the whole sample, feeling that the government was dealing well with the quality of public services had a significant positive relationship with one’s sense of achievement. In addition, feeling that the government was dealing well with ethnic conflict had a positive influence on one’s sense of happiness.

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

Determinants of Wellbeing

b773-ch08

125

Additional relationships were noted for the sample of married respondents. Specifically, their happiness was affected by how well they think the government was dealing with the economy and crime. Their achievement was affected by how well they think the government was dealing with the quality of public services (the only effect similar to the whole sample) and immigration. Lastly, their overall quality of life was affected by how well they think the government was dealing with unemployment.

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch09

9 Conclusion and Implications .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

In the preceding chapters, we have outlined the key findings relating to the standard of living, satisfaction/dissatisfaction with life domains, priorities in life, worries, views about government spending, the overall quality of life (happiness, enjoyment and achievement), value orientations, lifestyles, national identity, democracy and political rights, and the influence of demographic and non-demographic factors on the wellbeing of Singaporeans. In this chapter, we begin by noting the changes in the economic climate since the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey was conducted in mid 2006 (28 June to 1 August 2006) to the publication of this book in August 2009. Then using pertinent findings relevant to the policy implications to be highlighted, we discuss the key challenges Singaporeans face in attaining and maintaining their desired levels of wellbeing and quality of life. The policy implications cover a wide range of concerns for Singaporeans and we draw on various statistics from the preceding chapters for this purpose. Overview of Changes in Economic Climate The 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey was conducted in August 2006, a time when the Singapore economy was at the tail-end of a period of sustained recovery from the crises of 2003. The annual average unemployment rate for the resident population had steadily decreased from a high of 5.2 percent in 2003 to 3.6 percent in 2006, and dropped further to 3.0 percent in 2007 (Report on Labor Force in Singapore, 2008) . The average annual Gross Domestic Product growth rate (adjusted for inflation) for 2006 was 126

FA

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

Conclusion and Implications

b773-ch09

127

8.2 percent (http://tradingeconomics.com). The Straits Times Index (STI) at the start of 2006 was 2369.37. At year-end, the STI closed 26.02 percent higher at 2985.83. These buoyant figures are a sharp contrast to the current bleak economic climate. Since 2006, Singapore and the rest of the world have gone through an economic roller-coaster ride. From the boom and inflationary pressures of 2007 to the collapse of financial markets and institutions from September 2008, the world’s economies have been battered by turbulent market forces not seen since the Great Depression in the 1930s. As tomes and critiques about the causes and consequences of the financial meltdown continue to be written, the economic outlook in 2009 is a somber one with falling consumer demand, exports, wages and stock prices and escalating unemployment, job cuts, business failures, home foreclosures and bankruptcies. For the year of 2008, the annual unemployment rate averaged 3.2 percent for the resident population, the first time the rate has increased since 2003 (Report on Labor Force in Singapore, 2008). The average annual Gross Domestic Product growth rate was 1.23 percent for 2008, as the economy slowed down considerably through 2008, registering a negative 3.7 percent growth rate in 4Q2008 (http://tradingeconomics.com). The STI at the start of 2008 was 3461.22, but it lost considerable ground to close at 1761.56 at year-end (a decrease of 49.11%).

Reflections on Key Findings from the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey From the results of the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey, it appeared that Singaporeans were generally a contented lot with the majority expressing that they were satisfied with their standard of living. Compared to the other East Asian countries in the survey, Singaporeans were more likely to rate their standard of living as average (or higher). Most Singaporeans were happy (78.6%) and enjoyed life (88.5%), although only 16.9 percent felt they have accomplished “a great deal” in their lives. Singaporeans were most satisfied with their marriages (for those who are married), family life, friendships, public safety and housing. Almost all respondents consistently chose marriage and family as the two domains they are most satisfied with, with the exceptions of singles (who chose family life and friendships) and Christians (who chose marriage and friendships).

FA

June 18, 2009

128

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch09

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

It was interesting to note that though the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey was conducted in a time of relative economic stability and abundance, Singaporeans were constantly concerned about their economic wellbeing. Certain issues such as health and having good medical care, economic wellbeing and being gainfully employed, and the wellbeing of self and family, emerged consistently through the various measures of the quality of life. It is likely that these concerns about economic wellbeing would be even more prominent in the current bleak economic climate. The top five priorities in life for Singaporeans (being healthy, having a comfortable home, having a job, spending time with family and having enough to eat) highlighted the importance Singaporeans place on their personal wellbeing and the wellbeing of their families. The sixth priority of having access to good medical care was closely related to the top priority of health. The top five worries for Singaporeans were “Unemployment”, “Terrorism”, “Health Issues”, “Natural Disasters” and “Wars and Conflicts”. The ranking for “Unemployment” and “Health” mirrored the priorities in life and the importance Singaporeans placed on their economic and physical wellbeing. The rankings for natural disasters and security (terrorism, wars and conflicts) additionally reflected their concerns about feeling safe and protected. With reference to specific life domains, Singaporeans were least satisfied with their household incomes, the social welfare system, the democratic system, their jobs and education. Almost all respondents chose a combination of the three life domains comprising the social welfare system, household income and the democratic system. In terms of government spending, Singaporeans indicated that the areas of priority were health, followed by old-age pensions, education and unemployment benefits. In general, the differences in preferences for government spending were observed to be larger across different age groups, levels of education and income, and religions, but smaller across gender and marital status. For example, those with fewer financial resources (e.g., lower levels of education and income) would like the government to spend more on old-age pensions, education, unemployment benefits and the infrastructure. The most support for spending on unemployment benefits came from those in their forties (who were not as highly educated as the younger generation of Singaporeans) as they probably felt the need more acutely than the other respondents. Understandably, the older respondents (those aged 50 years and above) wanted more government spending for health, while almost 8 in 10

FA

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

Conclusion and Implications

b773-ch09

129

respondents in their forties and sixties wanted more government resources allocated to old-age pensions. Policy Implications During these times of economic upheaval and uncertainty, one could surmise that the feelings and opinions about economic security discussed earlier may be magnified. It is also during these times that Singaporeans are looking to their government to provide the necessary leadership and initiative to help the country weather its worst recession in years. Even in good times, Singaporeans wanted the government to spend more in the areas of health, old-age pensions and unemployment benefits. It is likely that these needs will be amplified as the economic crisis drags on and as people worry about their healthcare bills, job security, etc. Singaporeans would expect the government to step up and provide more social welfare for those in need, which includes a widening circle of Singaporeans beyond those who were conventionally described as poor and illiterate. Economic Wellbeing (Jobs and Incomes) Satisfaction with one’s personal life sphere (standard of living, household income, health, education and job) was a positive contributor to a person’s happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life. Our analysis consistently showed that people were concerned about their jobs, incomes and education, which in turn had a profound impact on their standard of living and overall quality of life. In terms of policy implications for economic wellbeing (such as providing education and jobs, and increasing household incomes), it is important to consider the sentiments of specific demographic groups who may feel that they are unable to enjoy living and achieving their fullest potential in Singapore due to various constraints. Females were significantly more dissatisfied with their jobs and education, while older respondents were increasingly disgruntled about their education. Those in their forties were considerably unhappy about their household incomes, while those in their sixties were dissatisfied with their jobs. Those with medium educational levels were dissatisfied with their household incomes,

FA

June 18, 2009

130

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch09

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

jobs and education, and even more so with the social welfare and democratic systems. Similarly, those with lower education were dissatisfied with the social welfare and democratic systems. Older, less educated workers may feel particularly disadvantaged compared to the younger generation of workers. According to the results of the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey, the more highly educated group seemed to have more coping resources compared to the lower and medium income groups. However, in the wake of a prolonged economic downturn, even PMETs (Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians) and white-collar workers will not be spared as they may also need to learn new skills to adapt to harsher economic realities. Many other workers will not have jobs, while some may be in jobs or careers that do not provide the desired levels of financial capital, autonomy and/or prestige. Lifelong learning and the upgrading of skills are necessary for all workers, not only those who are older and less skilled. Opportunities for continual education, retraining and employment advancement must be made available to all Singaporeans regardless of their gender, age and current educational levels. During an extended economic slump, the middle-class in Singapore would also experience difficulties in making ends meet. They may feel they are not able to sustain their standard of living because of rising costs and decreasing wages. They are also not entitled to subsidies that are available to families with lower education and incomes. Policy-makers should be aware of the specific concerns of these segments which face economic and social constraints in attaining or maintaining their desired standard of living. Although the Singapore government has traditionally been resistant towards distributive forms of welfare, they have recognized that some segments of the population do need financial help and other forms of support. Previously, policy-makers had identified several growth opportunities in the areas of biotechnologies (including stem-cell research), higher education, financial services, urban renewal and tourism (including meetings, incentive trips, conventions, exhibitions and casinos). However, to ensure that the Singapore economy remains robust enough to weather the current financial storm, more measures may be needed. For the Budget of 2009, the Singapore government unveiled a Resilience Package containing key initiatives to stimulate the economy, including the unprecedented decision to dip into the country’s reserves. The Singapore government has continued to launch numerous tax and workforce initiatives to enhance the cash flow

FA

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

Conclusion and Implications

b773-ch09

131

of businesses and Singapore’s overall competitiveness in a global market. Another critical initiative focused on helping Singaporeans keep their jobs through the Jobs Credit Scheme and Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR). Physical Wellbeing (Health) Singaporeans were very much concerned about their health and access to good medical care. “Being healthy” was the top priority in life, and it was consistently ranked first across all demographic groups. “Health” was also among the top two worries identified by Singaporeans, who wanted more government spending in this area. The concern for health was especially prevalent among the older respondents. Policy-makers face many challenges in making excellent and yet affordable healthcare available to Singaporeans, especially with an ageing population and growing demand for medical goods and services. Previously, healthcare initiatives from the government, the private sector and related agencies have focused on providing comprehensive medical insurance coverage for the general population and encouraging a healthy lifestyle for all Singaporeans. Recently, the focus has expanded to address other pressing issues such as the affordability of healthcare for all Singaporeans and the needs of the ageing population. Means testing has been introduced in hospitals to better direct resources to the less privileged. Medisave funds have also been allocated for long term medication and treatment for some chronic illnesses. The government has provided funding to biomedical research teams investigating medical issues relating to ageing. In addition to physical health, it is also crucial to address the mental and emotional needs of the ageing. The elderly need to be socially engaged and connected with the people and communities that are important to them. They should be given opportunities to contribute to the economy with their expertise and experience, to mentor and guide younger people, and to be productively integrated with the rest of society. Grassroot-level organizations, non-profit agencies and the private sector should work handin-hand with the government to ensure that the diverse needs of the ageing population can be met.

FA

June 18, 2009

132

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch09

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Emotional Wellbeing and Social Wellbeing (Family, Home and Community) From our analysis, Singaporeans generally treasure their relationships with people around them, especially their family ties. Singaporeans were more family oriented than their counterparts in East Asia (namely China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam). “Spending time with family” was their fourth top priority in life, and familial relationships were greatly valued. Satisfaction with one’s interpersonal life sphere (housing, friendships, neighbors, family life, leisure and spiritual life) also boosted one’s sense of happiness, enjoyment and overall quality of life. In view of the ageing population and the fact that singles and younger people place more importance about having a job and being economically independent, while those in their thirties and forties are more familyoriented, this presents challenges to opinion leaders and policy makers who need to cater to older pro-family elements while also reaching out to younger and more educated Singaporeans. “Having a comfortable home” is an important priority in life for Singaporeans. There is already a high degree of home ownership in Singapore as the government actively engages in funding and building affordable and good quality public housing. However, due to the scarcity of land resources, property and housing prices in Singapore can be volatile and subject to inflationary pressures. If owning one’s home is an integral part of nation-building, more effort should be put into ensuring that all Singaporeans have an opportunity to own their homes and to stay rooted to their homeland. For example, singles under the age of 35 years currently do not benefit from government subsidies on housing, and would have to purchase more expensive private housing if they want to live on their own. More innovative schemes for home ownership, possibly involving the private sector, would have to be implemented to ensure that singles do not feel left out of the social fabric of Singapore. People who are single by circumstance (through divorce or death of a spouse) also need to be taken care of. More importantly, the concept of family needs to be redefined to include evolving and non-traditional familial networks.

FA

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

Conclusion and Implications

b773-ch09

133

Sense of Belonging (National Identity) In addition to doing well on the economic front, Singaporeans recognized that it was critical to nurture the heart and soul of a nation. The nurturing of a unique and sustainable Singaporean identity is an important sociopolitical concern as Singapore welcomes more economic migrants to her shores. The increasing ethnic diversity of Singapore’s population presents challenges for policy-makers to maintain social cohesiveness while providing a conducive environment for all citizens to realize their aspirations in life. In recent years, Singapore’s leaders have recognized the need to connect Singaporeans to the nation and to fellow citizens. Compared to their East Asian counterparts, Singaporeans were more widely traveled and globally connected. Globalized Singaporeans tended to be younger, married, and have higher educational levels and incomes. It is a challenge to keep them engaged as Singaporeans as they have opportunities to take up careers and citizenships elsewhere. Singapore has also been opening her doors to economic migrants to boost the current population of four million to six-and-a half million for further economic growth. There is a need to integrate these migrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds into the social and cultural fabric of Singapore. This sense of belonging cannot be based only on the economic basis of home ownership but should encompass more symbolic and intangible shared values such as taking pride in one’s country and doing one’s best for the nation. Being proud of one’s Singaporean identity was a positive contributor to a person’s happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life. For married respondents, it contributed to their sense of happiness and overall quality of life. Generally, Singaporeans have a strong sense of national identity and are proud of being Singaporean. They are also open to appropriating the Asian identity. In terms of ethnocentrism, Singaporeans do not believe that their culture is superior to that of another country or are not very enthusiastic about patriotic education. However, the majority of Singaporeans would advocate protecting domestic interests by having the government restrict the inflow of foreign workers if needed. This patriotism may be attributed in part to the nation-building effort spearheaded by the Singapore government and its various agencies (such as the Ministry for Community, Youth and Sports) in addition to the natural

FA

June 18, 2009

134

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ch09

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

organic growth of national identity in a young and vibrant nation. Messages focusing on social cohesion and harmony among Singaporeans are also frequently disseminated through the largely state-owned media (such as the newspapers, TV and radio broadcasters), as well as informally through new media such as the Internet. In addition, policy makers should consider initiatives to help globalized Singaporeans connect with their homeland. Recent changes to allow a limited number of Singaporeans based at some overseas centers to participate in the voting process for local elections have been welcomed. Political Rights and Empowerment With regard to issues of democracy and political rights, Singaporeans are not highly involved in political actions, whether they are signing a petition, joining in boycotts or attending lawful demonstrations. Singaporeans consistently ranked last among her five East Asian neighbors (China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) in all three areas of political involvement. However, since the rules for the Speakers’ Corner were relaxed in late 2008, Singaporeans have taken part in peaceful demonstrations to voice their concerns about the unethical practices of financial institutions and to seek redress in the wake of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Thus it appeared that Singaporeans were willing to be a part of lawful demonstrations if these were related to their economic wellbeing. Singapore had a mixed record in terms of Singaporeans’ satisfaction with various political rights. It appeared that Singaporeans were very satisfied with certain aspects of the democratic system (such as their right to vote and the right to take part in any organization), but were not as satisfied with other political rights (such as the right to gather and the right to criticize the government). In addition, more than half of Singaporeans felt that they did not really understand politics, and three in ten Singaporeans were concerned that government officials might not be responsive to their views and needs after they were elected. Further demographic analysis within the Singaporean sample highlighted some significant differences across gender, age and income with regard to satisfaction with certain political rights. These findings support recent government initiatives such as REACH (Reaching Everyone for Active Citizenry@Home), the government online

FA

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

Conclusion and Implications

b773-ch09

135

portal, to try and engage Singaporeans in the political process. Perhaps a further loosening up of controls in line with the liberalization of media and the relaxation of laws for political videos would be seen in the near future. Conclusion In outlining the implications of our research on the wellbeing of Singaporeans, it is important to consider the varied roles played by the government, the private sector, non-profit organizations and civil society groups. All parties would have to work together to ensure that the quality of life for Singaporeans is continually enhanced, and not just in terms of economic wellbeing. Other aspects of wellbeing are also crucial when Singaporeans move beyond the basic bread-and-butter issues to consider what can further contribute to their overall sense of happiness and achievement in life. In tandem with this perspective, the continual monitoring of the quality of life of Singaporeans is necessary. In particular, it would be ideal to have a common, composite index of wellbeing for Singaporeans that can be tracked over the years. The choice of variables and measures for future studies is an important consideration in the ongoing research on wellbeing and the quality of life. Although some significant effects of demographic variables have been documented in the past, notably the impact of education and income, research studies on the quality of life in relatively well-developed economies have increasingly incorporated non-demographic variables. Most of these non-demographic variables involve both cognitive and affective measures of satisfaction. Recently, researchers have broadened the scope of these measures to include more contemporary concerns such as environmental consciousness. Although some of these indicators may ultimately have an economic impact, it is also important to consider their non-economic contributions to the quality of life of individuals and communities.

FA

June 18, 2009

18:32

9in x 6in

B-773

This page intentionally left blank

b773-ch09

FA

July 2, 2009

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ref

References .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ahuvia, AC (2002). Individualism/Collectivism and cultures of happiness: A theoretical conjecture on the relationship between consumption, culture and subjective well-being at the national level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 23–36. Chan, YK, CCA Kwan and TLD Shek (2005). Quality of Life in Hong Kong: The CUHK Hong Kong Quality of Life Index. Social Indicators Research, 71(1–3), 259–289. Demby, EH (1994). Psychographics revisited: The birth of a technique. Chicago, 6(2), 26–32, Spring. Diener, E (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575. Diener, E and F Fujita (1997). Social comparisons and subjective wellbeing. In Buunk, B and F Gibbons (eds.), Health, Coping and Wellbeing, pp. 329–258. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Hellevik, O (2003). Economy, values and happiness in Norway. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4(3), 243–283. Inglehart, R, R Foa, C Peterson and C Welzel (2008). Development, freedom and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264–285. Inoguchi, T and S Fujii (2008). The AsiaBarometer: Its aim, its scope and its development. In Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe: How are We Doing? Møller, V, D Huschka and AC Michalos (eds.), Social Indicators Research Series, 33, 187–232. Springer: Netherlands. Kau, AK and C Yang (1991). Values and Lifestyles of Singaporeans: A Marketing Perspective. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Kau, AK and SH Wong (1995). Assessing quality of life in Singapore: an exploratory study. Social Indicators Research, 35(1), 71–92. Kau, AK, SJ Tan and J Wirtz (1998). Seven Faces of Singaporeans: Their Values, Aspirations and Lifestyles. Singapore: Prentice Hall. Kau, AK, K Jung, SK Tambyah and SJ Tan (2004). Understanding Singaporeans: Values, Lifestyles, Aspirations and Consumption Behaviors. Singapore: World Scientific Press. La Barbera, PA and Z Gurhan (1997). The role of materialism, religiosity and demographics in subjective well-being. Psychology & Marketing, 14(1), 71–97. 137

July 2, 2009

138

11:59

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-ref

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Mitchell, A (1983). The Nine American Lifestyles. New York: Macmillan. Mowen, J (1995). Consumer Behavior, 4th edn. New York: Prentice Hall. Ring, L, S Hofer, H McGee, A Hickey and CA O’Boyle (2007). Individual quality of life: can it be accounted for by psychological or subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 82(3), 443–461. Rokeach, M (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Ryan, L and S Dziurawiec (2001). Materialism and its relationship to life satisfaction Social Indicators Research, 55(2), 185–197. Schimmack, U, J Schupp and GG Wagner (2008). The influence of environment and personality on the affective and cognitive component of subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 41–60. Summer, W (1996). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. New York: Claredon Press. Swinyard, W, AK Kau and HY Phua (2001). Happiness, materialism and religious experience in the US and Singapore. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2(1), 13–32. Tan, SJ, SK Tambyah and AK Kau (2006). The influence of value orientations and demographics on quality-of-life perceptions: Evidence from a national survey of Singaporeans. Social Indicators Research, 78(1), 33–59. Tambyah, SK, SJ Tan and AK Kau (2009). The quality of life in Singapore. Social Indicators Research, 92(2), 337–376.

June 18, 2009

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Index books, 110, 111 boycotts, 98–100, 112, 135 brochures, 110

achievement, 1, 5, 12, 56, 58, 60, 63–68, 114, 116–121, 123–127, 130, 134, 136 achievement index, 58 activities, 4, 12, 31, 32, 34, 39, 41, 79 adoption, 75, 77, 87 affective aspects, 12, 56 affective component, 2 affective measures, 136 age, 4, 7–10, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24–26, 29, 36–38, 42–44, 46–55, 59–65, 67–70, 80, 83, 85–88, 101, 102, 112, 114, 129, 131, 133, 135 fifties, 50–59 years, 8, 10, 17, 22, 24, 26, 36–38, 43, 44, 47–53, 59, 60, 62–64, 67, 83, 102, 103 forties, 40–49 years, 7, 8, 10, 17, 22, 24–27, 29, 36, 37, 43, 44, 47–53, 59, 60, 62–65, 67, 83, 85, 86, 102, 103, 129, 130, 133 sixties, 60–69 years, 8, 10, 16, 17, 24, 26, 29, 67, 68, 83, 102, 103, 130 thirties, 30–39 years, 7, 8, 10, 17, 21, 22, 24–26, 29, 36, 37, 43, 47–51, 53, 54, 59, 60, 62, 64, 67, 83, 85, 86, 102, 133 twenties, 20–29 years, 8, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 36–38, 43, 46–52, 59, 61, 62, 64, 67, 83, 102, 103 ageing, 37, 44, 132, 133 AsiaBarometer Survey, 5, 6, 8–10, 13, 15, 18, 77, 89, 97, 110, 127–129, 131 Asian, being Asian, 87–89, 91

Cantonese, 81, 93 census of population, 6 China, 5, 15, 16, 19–21, 28, 29, 31, 33–35, 40–42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 69–71, 73–79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 91–96, 99, 100, 103–106, 111–113, 133, 135 Chinese, 2, 35, 72, 75, 77, 80, 89–92, 94, 95, 100, 105, 106 Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others (CMIO), 89 civil society groups, 136 clusters, 3, 4, 6, 102 cognitive component, 2 cognitive measures, 56 communist, 77, 95, 96 competitiveness, 74, 132 computers, 84–86 conferences, 110 conversations, 110–113 cyber-gap, 85, 87 data collection, 1 deference for teachers, 74 democracy, 5, 12, 39, 41, 97, 98, 127, 135 demographic analysis, 102, 103, 112, 135 demographic groupings, 21, 27 demographic groups, 11, 15, 24, 29, 46, 52, 55, 58, 59, 61–65, 69, 83, 130, 132 demographic variables, 7, 12, 21, 101, 114, 116, 117, 120, 122–125, 136 139

FA

June 18, 2009

140

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

demographics, 6, 7, 11–13, 15–17, 21, 22, 24–27, 29, 35, 36, 42, 43, 46, 47, 52, 55, 58, 59, 61–69, 83, 85, 101–103, 112, 114–117, 120, 122–125, 127, 130, 132, 135, 136 demonstrations, 98–100, 112, 135 determinants of achievement, 123 determinants of enjoyment, 122 determinants of happiness, 116 determinants of the overall quality of life, 123 diet, 36, 37 digital life index, 86, 87 digital lifestyle, 5, 12, 69, 84 diligence, 72, 74, 86 E-Orientation, 84, 85 East Asian countries, 5, 11, 15, 16, 19–21, 32–35, 40, 41, 54, 55, 68, 70–74, 76–79, 82, 84–87, 96, 97, 99, 103–105, 110, 111, 113, 128 East Asian societies, 5, 31, 69, 72, 88 economic indices, 1 economic wellbeing, 55, 129, 130, 135, 136 economy, 55, 116, 117, 120, 122, 126–128, 131, 132 education, 1, 4, 7, 8, 10–12, 17–30, 32, 33, 36, 38, 39, 41–55, 59–64, 67–69, 80, 83, 85–89, 95, 96, 101, 114, 115, 117, 120, 125, 129–131, 134, 136 high education, 17, 23, 25, 27–29, 32, 33, 43, 44, 47–54, 59–64, 67–69, 80, 83, 86, 87, 131 low education, 17, 23, 25, 27–29, 43, 46–54, 59–64, 67, 83, 85, 86, 131 medium education, 17, 23, 25, 27–29, 38, 43, 44, 46–54, 59–64, 67, 83, 85, 130 middle education, 61, 68 elderly, 132 election, 98, 107, 135 electronic communication, 84, 86, 87

electronic communication technology/technologies, 84, 86, 87 email, 81, 82, 84–87 English, 6, 12, 13, 88, 89, 94, 96, 114, 116, 117, 120, 122, 125 English fluency, 12, 88, 89, 96 enjoyment, 5, 12, 56, 57, 61, 62, 65–68, 114, 116–125, 127, 130, 133, 134 enjoyment index, 57 environmental problems, 116, 119, 121 ethnic conflict, 116, 119, 121, 125 ethnic group, 78, 90, 91 ethnicity, 77, 90, 92, 93 ethnocentrism, 13, 93, 94, 114, 116, 125, 134 family, 4, 5, 12, 18–25, 28, 29, 31–38, 54, 69–73, 75–77, 81, 82, 86, 87, 97, 115, 116, 125, 128, 129, 133 family line, 73, 75, 77, 87 family orientation, 12, 69, 75, 87 family values, 4, 5, 21, 69, 70, 72, 97 spending time with family, 31–34, 37, 38, 54, 69, 70, 86, 129, 133 financial markets, 128 foreign workers, 88, 94, 95, 134 freedom of speech, 100, 101, 105, 106, 112 gender, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 36, 43, 46–51, 54, 55, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 72, 83, 86, 87, 101, 102, 112, 114, 117, 120, 129, 131, 135 female, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 22, 24, 26, 29, 35, 36, 42, 43, 46–54, 58–62, 64–66, 68, 69, 83, 85, 86, 101, 102, 130 male, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26–29, 35, 36, 42, 43, 46–54, 58–62, 64–66, 83, 85, 86, 101, 102 General Household Survey, 8–10, 27 global life index, 82, 87 global outlook, 5, 12, 69, 81 globalization, 39, 41, 81, 82, 87, 88, 94, 134, 135 government officials, 108–110, 112, 135

FA

June 18, 2009

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Index government policy, 108 government spending, 12, 31, 44–47, 52–55, 114, 127, 129, 132 culture and the arts, 45, 46 defence, 45, 46 law enforcement, 18, 46 Old-Age Pensions, 45, 48, 52, 54, 55, 129, 130 policing, 45, 46 public transport, 45, 51, 54 social status of women, 45 telecommunications infrastructure, 45 the military, 45, 46, 98 unemployment benefits, 45, 50, 53–55, 129, 130 grassroot-level organizations, 132 gross domestic product growth rate, 127, 128 happiness, 1–3, 5, 12, 28, 56–61, 65–68, 101, 106, 114, 116–127, 130, 133, 134, 136 happiness index, 56 harmony, 78, 135 having a comfortable home, 31–34, 37, 38, 54, 129, 133 having enough to eat, 31–34, 37, 38, 54, 129 healthcare, 130, 132 home ownership, 133, 134 honesty, 72, 74, 86, 109, 112 Hong Kong, 2, 5, 15, 16, 19–21, 28, 29, 31–35, 40–42, 54, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 75, 77, 79–82, 85–91, 93–96, 99, 103–106, 111–113, 135 Hong Kongers, 73, 89, 91–96, 99, 105, 106 household budget, 71–73 humbleness, 74 immigration, 116, 119, 121, 123, 126 income, 1, 7, 9–12, 16–29, 32, 33, 36, 38, 43, 44, 46–55, 59–65, 67, 68, 80, 83, 85–87, 101–103, 112, 114, 115, 117, 120, 123–125, 129–131, 134–136

141

high income, 11, 17, 23, 25, 27, 32, 33, 43, 44, 46–54, 59–62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 80, 83, 86, 102, 103 low income, 11, 17, 23, 25, 27, 28, 38, 43, 44, 47–54, 59–65, 67, 68, 83, 102, 103, 131 medium income, 11, 17, 25, 27, 28, 38, 60, 67, 80, 86, 102, 103, 131 middle income, 23, 43, 44, 47–54, 59–62, 64, 65, 68, 83 independence, 72, 74, 86 index of overall life quality, 65, 66 information technology, 85 insurance, 71–73, 132 internet, 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 110, 111, 113, 135 internet web pages, 84, 85 internet ads, 110 internet bulletin boards, 110 internet mailing lists, 110 internet news, 110, 111, 113 interpersonal life sphere, 13, 114, 116, 125, 133 interviews, 6 Japan, 4–6, 15, 16, 19–21, 28, 29, 31, 33–35, 40–42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 69–71, 73–76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84–93, 95, 96, 99, 103–106, 111–113, 133, 135 Japanese, 34, 40, 71–73, 90, 92, 93, 95, 99, 105, 106, 111 language group, 90–92 leaflets, 110 life domains, 5, 12, 15, 18–22, 24–26, 28, 29, 114, 115, 122, 123, 127, 129 democratic system, 12, 18–23, 26–30, 115, 116, 125, 129, 135 education, 12, 18–25, 28–30, 115, 125, 129 environment, 12, 15, 18–20, 28, 32, 115, 116, 125 family life, 12, 18–25, 28, 29, 31, 73, 86, 115, 116, 125, 128, 133

FA

June 18, 2009

142

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

friendships, 12, 18–21, 23–25, 28, 29, 115, 116, 125, 128, 133 health, 12, 18–20, 28, 115, 116, 125, 129 household income, 12, 18–25, 28, 29, 115, 125, 129 housing, 12, 18–20, 24–26, 28, 29, 115, 116, 125, 133 job, 12, 18–23, 26, 28, 29, 115, 125, 129 leisure, 12, 18–20, 28, 115, 116, 125, 133 marriage, 12, 18–26, 28, 29, 114, 115, 128 neighbors, 12, 18–20, 28, 115, 116, 125, 133 public safety, 12, 18–21, 24–26, 28, 29, 115, 116, 125, 128 spiritual life, 12, 18–20, 28, 115, 116, 125, 133 welfare system, 12, 18–21, 26–30, 115, 116, 125, 129 life satisfaction, 2, 3, 5, 12, 18, 31 lifestyles, 3–5, 12, 18, 69, 70, 83, 85, 114, 127 loving and charitable person, 73, 75, 76 magazine advertisements, 110 Malay, 6, 89, 90, 94 marital status, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 24–26, 36, 42, 43, 46–52, 54, 55, 59, 62, 64, 66, 68, 83, 87, 101, 114, 129 married, 7, 8, 10–12, 16–19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 35, 36, 42, 43, 46–54, 59–64, 66, 68, 69, 80, 83, 85–87, 114 single, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24–26, 29, 35, 36, 42, 43, 46–54, 59–64, 66, 83 marriage partner, 73, 75, 76 means testing, 132 Media, influence of media, 109–110 medical care, 31–34, 36, 37, 44, 129, 132 meditate, 79, 117, 120 meetings, 110, 131 migrant labor, 88

mindfulness, 72, 74 mobile phones, 84–87 national identification, 12, 88, 90 national identity, 5, 12, 88, 96, 127, 134, 135 national pride, 12, 13, 88, 92, 96, 114, 116 nationality, 90–92 newspaper advertisements, 110 non-profit agencies, 132 non-profit organizations, 136 objective measures, 2 overall quality of life, 5, 12, 56, 65, 68, 114, 116–121, 123–127, 130, 133, 134 patience, 74 patriotic education, 12, 88, 95, 96, 134 patriotism, 96, 134 PDI, 18–21 PDI values, 18 personal life sphere, 13, 114–116, 125, 130 personal wellbeing, 31, 34, 40, 54, 129 petitions, 99, 112, 135 physical wellbeing, 55, 129, 132 PMETs, 131 policy-makers, 131, 132, 134 political action, 12, 97–100, 112, 135 political corruption, 116, 118, 120 political leader, 75, 76, 97, 111 political rights, 5, 12, 97, 103, 106–109, 112, 127, 135 politics, 108, 112, 135 population census, 10 pray, 79, 80, 115, 117, 120 praying, 80 priorities, 1, 5, 6, 12, 21, 31–40, 45, 54, 55, 69–71, 114, 115, 127, 129 access to higher education, 32, 33 access to medical care, 37 appreciating art and culture, 32–34 being devout, 32, 33 being famous, 32–35 being on good terms with others, 32–34, 54

FA

June 18, 2009

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Index being successful at work, 32, 33 contributing to your local community or to society, 32, 33, 35 dressing up, 32–34 enjoying a pastime, 32, 33 expressing your personality, 32, 33, 35 freedom of expression, 32, 33, 35 good government, 32, 33 live without fear of crime, 32, 34 owning lots of nice things, 32–34 raising children, 32–34, 37, 54 using your talents, 32, 33, 35 winning over others, 32–35 private sector, 132, 133, 136 profession, 75, 76 psychographic profiling, 3, 4 public life sphere, 13, 114, 116, 125 public services, 18, 116, 118, 121, 123, 125, 126 quality of life, 1–3, 5, 6, 12, 31, 56, 65, 68, 114, 116–121, 123–127, 129, 130, 133, 134, 136 quality of life index, 2 racial group, 90 radio advertisements, 110 radio programs, 110–112 REACH, 135 regression, 114–116, 122–125 relationships, 2, 116, 126, 133 religion, 7, 10, 11, 17, 21, 23–30, 37, 38, 43, 44, 47–55, 59, 60, 62–65, 67, 68, 70, 71, 77, 79, 80, 83, 85–87, 90, 92, 93 Buddhism, 10, 78 Buddhists, 7, 11, 17, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 37, 43, 44, 47–52, 54, 59, 60, 62–65, 67, 68, 83, 85, 86 Christians, 7, 11, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25–30, 38, 43, 47–53, 59, 60, 62–65, 67–69, 80, 83, 85, 86, 128 Hindus, 11, 16, 17, 23, 25–29, 37, 38, 43, 44, 47–54, 59, 60, 62–65, 67, 68, 83

143

Muslims, 7, 11, 16, 17, 23, 25–30, 37, 38, 43, 44, 47–53, 59–65, 67, 68, 80, 83, 85, 86 None, 11, 17, 23, 25–30, 47–51, 59, 62, 64, 67, 83 Taoism, 10, 78 religiosity, 13, 74, 114, 115, 125 religious affiliation, 52, 53, 55, 79, 80 religious conflict, 116, 119, 121 religious faith, 52, 54, 80 religious group, 7, 11, 16, 26, 30, 44, 61, 72, 73, 79, 86, 90, 91, 114 religious services, 79 Resilience Package, 131 resources, 4, 12, 28, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 41, 55, 68, 116, 129–133 respect for senior persons, 74 respected by the masses, 73, 75, 76 restrictions on foreign workforce, 94, 95 retirement allowance, 72, 73 retraining, 28, 131 right to be informed, 100, 101, 104, 106, 112 right to criticize the government, 100–103, 105, 106, 112, 135 right to gather and demonstrate, 100–102, 104, 106, 112 right to participate, 100, 101, 104–106, 112 right to vote, 100, 101, 103, 105–107, 112, 135 sample, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 22, 31, 35, 47–52, 59, 62–64, 69, 83, 88, 112, 114, 116, 117, 120, 122–126, 135 representativeness (of sample), 7, 10 sample design, 6 sample frame, 6 sample size, 6 stratified(sampling), 6, 7 satisfaction with life domains, 15, 18, 19, 22, 114, 127 scholar, 1, 75, 76 sense of belonging, 134 sincerity, 72, 74

FA

June 18, 2009

144

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Wellbeing of Singaporeans

Singapore, 2–11, 15–19, 22, 24, 26, 28, 32, 36, 39, 40, 42–45, 47, 54–58, 69, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77–79, 81–86, 88–91, 93–96, 99, 102–107, 109, 111–113, 116, 117, 120, 127, 128, 130–135 Singapore Parliament, 109 Singaporean identity, 94, 125, 134 Singaporeans, 3–5, 11–13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44–46, 54–59, 61–65, 68–73, 75, 79, 80, 82–101, 105–112, 114, 116, 117, 120, 122–125, 127–136 skills, 28, 131, 132 social circles, 70, 71 area where you grew up, 70, 71 club, 70, 71, 97 cooperative, 70, 71, 97 hobby circle, 70, 71, 97 labor union, 70, 71, 97 neighborhood, 70, 71 neighbors, 72, 73 people who speak the same language, 70, 71 place of work, 70, 71 political party, 70, 71, 97, 111 relatives, 70–73, 86 school or university, 70, 71 social cohesion, 135 social cohesiveness, 134 social groups, 70, 71, 86, 93, 111 social indicators, 1 social welfare payments, 72, 73 social wellbeing, 133 South Korea, 5, 15, 16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 40–42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 75, 78, 79, 82, 86, 88–91, 93, 95, 96, 99, 103–106, 111–113, 133, 135 South Koreans, 21, 29, 34, 35, 71–73, 90, 92–95, 99, 100, 105, 106 spirituality, 5, 12, 69, 75–77, 79, 80, 83, 87 spirituality index, 80 SPUR, 132 standard of living, 5, 11, 12, 15–20, 28, 115, 125, 127, 128, 130, 131 Straits Times Index, 128

subjective measures, 2 subjective wellbeing, 1, 2, 116 superiority of one’s culture, 88 system of governance, 12, 97, 98 Taiwan, 5, 15, 16, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 33–35, 40–42, 54, 56–58, 68–71, 73–82, 84–91, 93–96, 99, 100, 103–106, 111–113, 133, 135 Taiwanese, 21, 29, 34, 71, 89, 91–93, 95, 96, 100, 106 traditional culture, 72, 93, 116, 117, 120 transnational group, 90–92 transnational identity, 90, 91 travel, 88, 94 TV advertisements, 110, 112 TV programming, 81 TV programs, 82, 110, 111 unemployment rate, 127, 128 unseen spiritual world, 79, 80 VALS system, 4 value orientations, 3, 5, 12, 69, 114, 127 values, 1, 3–5, 18, 21, 45, 69, 70, 72, 85, 95–97, 99, 103–105, 134 instrumental values, 3 terminal values, 3 values and lifestyles, 3–5, 18 Vietnam, 5, 15, 16, 19–21, 28, 29, 31, 33–35, 40–42, 54, 55, 57, 58, 68–71, 73–79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88–91, 93–97, 99, 103–105, 111, 113, 133 Vietnamese, 21, 34, 72, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96 Vote, voting, duty to vote, 106–107 wellbeing, 1–3, 5, 12, 13, 31, 34, 40, 54–56, 114–116, 125, 127, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 136 workers, 28, 44, 88, 94, 95, 131, 134 World Values Survey, 3 worries, 1, 12, 31, 39–44, 55, 114, 115, 127, 129, 132 aging of society, 39, 41 corporate power, 39, 41

FA

June 18, 2009

19:26

9in x 6in

B-773

b773-index

Index corruption, 39, 41, 42, 55 crime, 32–34, 39–44, 116, 118, 121, 122, 126 decline in birth rate, 39, 41 drugs, 39, 41, 42 economic inequality, 39, 41 economic problems, 39–41 environment, 1 environmental destruction, 39–41, 55 ethics of scientists, 39, 41 fair world trade, 39, 41 global recession, 39, 41 globalization, 39, 41, 81, 88

145

human rights, 39, 41, 116, 118, 121 moral decline, 39, 41, 42, 55 natural disaster, 39–43, 46 natural disasters, 55 nuclear disasters, 39, 41 pollution, 39–41, 55 poverty, 39–42 refugee and asylum problems, 39, 41 religious fundamentalism, 39, 41 technology, 39, 41, 85, 87 terrorism, 39–44, 55 unemployment, 40–45, 55 wars and conflicts, 39–43, 46, 55

FA