Singapore as a place to live

Singapore is an island city-state located at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. It enjoys a tropical rainforest climate, with temperatures ranging from 22° to 34° Celsius throughout the year. Although Singapore consists of 63 islands, it has a total land area of only about 700 square kilometers. Singapore was a fishing village before it was colonized by the British East India Company in 1819 and then used as a trading outpost. The island was occupied by the Japanese Empire during World War II but reverted to British rule in 1945. It joined the Malaysian Federation in 1963 and became independent in 1965. Singapore is a republic with a democratic system of unicameral parliamentary government. Most of Singapore’s laws are inherited from British and British-Indian laws.

Singapore is considered one of the best places to live in Asia, if not the world. Various surveys of quality of life have placed Singapore favorably when compared to many cities in the world. The 2017 Worldwide Quality of Living Survey conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consultancy assessed Singapore to be the 25th best city in the world, one step up from the 26th spot in 2016. Incidentally, Singapore held this same position in 2011. This survey placed Singapore ahead of Tokyo’s 47th position. Both cities were considered to have the highest quality of life in Asia (excluding Australian cities). The ranking by Mercer is premised upon their evaluation of the living environment in 420 cities. These quality of life assessments include the political, social, economic and sociocultural environment, health and sanitation, and other aspects such as school and education, public services and transportation, recreation, consumer goods, housing and natural environment.

Demographics and human development

Singapore is a multiethnic, multireligious and multilingual society. As at the end of June 2016, according to the Singapore Department of Statistics website, the resident population of Singaporeans and Permanent Residents consisted of Chinese as the dominant ethnic group (74.3 percent), followed by Malays (13.4 percent), Indians (9.1 percent) and Others (3.2 percent). There are considerable freedom and plurality in the practice of religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and so on. The national language is Malay, but the other official languages of English, Mandarin and Tamil are widely spoken by the population.

In 2017, the population in Singapore was estimated to be 5.676 million (an increase from 5.18 million in 2011), of which 3.96 million were residents (3.79 million in 2011). Based on 2017 figures from the Singapore Department of Statistics website, the life expectancy at birth was recorded to be 82.9 years (81.8 years in 2011), with males averaging 80.6 years (79.3 years in 2011) and females 85.1 years (84.1 years in 2011). The literacy rate in 2016 among residents aged 15 years and above was around 97 percent (96 percent in 2011), with 52.8 percent of resident nonstudents aged 25 years and above possessing at least a postsecondary school education. Home ownership was rather high among residents and recorded to be around 90.9 percent. Singapore is a relatively safe place, with a crime rate of about 588 per 100,000 (606 per 100,000 in 2011).

The Human Development Index (HDI) looks at happiness not just from an economic perspective but also with respect to health and education. The index comprises three components: national income, life expectancy and literacy. In 2010, three new measures were added: inequality-adjusted HDI, the Gender Inequality Index and the Multidimensional Poverty Index. In 2016, a total of 188 countries were included in the HDI rankings. The HDI classifies countries into one of three clusters according to their human development attainment. Singapore was joint fifth with Denmark in 2017 (26th in 2011), with a score of 0.925 (0.866 in 2011). Singapore is in the very high human development cluster and more highly ranked than Hong Kong (12th), Japan (17th), South Korea (18th) and Brunei (30th). No figures were available for Taiwan as it has been excluded from membership in the United Nations. Malaysia (59th) is in the high human development cluster, while most of the other South East Asian countries are in the medium human development cluster. Myanmar (145th) is in the low human development cluster. Singapore has usually done well on the HDI because of its strong economic performance (GDP) and the favorable statistics about life expectancy and literacy.

Economic development, governance and stability

Since independence, the current ruling party, the People’s Action Party, has been in power. This political stability, coupled with an effective government and administration, has contributed to the economic development of the country from primarily a trading port to a global city hub. Singapore’s development was based on a market-driven economic system, with an emphasis on industrialization and export orientation.

According to the Singapore Department of Statistics and figures released in 2016, the economy grew at 2.0 percent (4.9 percent in 2011) and the per capita GDP was reported to be S$73,167 (S$63,050 in 2011). The average monthly household income in 2016 was S$10,336, up from S$8722 in 2011, S$6181 in 2006 and S$5972 in 2001. Inflationary pressures for the last few years (5.2 percent inflation rate in 2011) eased in 2016 (inflation rate of −0.5 percent) and 2017 (inflation rate of 0.4 percent). The unemployment rate in 2017 was low at 2.1 percent (similar to 2011). The Ministry of Manpower noted that over the last ten years, from 2007 to 2017, the average number of paid hours worked per week remained relatively constant at around 45 to 46 hours.

In the 2017 Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation, which ranks 186 nations in terms of their levels of economic freedom, Singapore was assessed as 88.6 percent free (87.5 percent free in 2012), making it the world’s second freest economy after Hong Kong. The assessment of economic freedom was based on 12 measures along four dimensions as follows: rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency and open markets. Singapore performed well in property rights (97.1), business freedom (95.1), judicial effectiveness (91.5) and labor freedom (90.8).

According to surveys examined by Transparency International and the Corruption Perceptions Index that they computed, Singapore was perceived to have the least corrupt public sector among Asian nations in 2016 and was also ranked at 7th (5th in 2011) on a global scale of 176 countries with a score of 8.4 (9.2 in 2011). The countries ranked ahead of Singapore were New Zealand and Denmark (joint 1st), Finland (3rd), Sweden (4th), Switzerland (5th) and Norway (6th). The 2016 report on Corruption in Asia by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Ltd. rated Singapore’s government as having the highest level of integrity in Asia, Australia and United States. Its level of corruption had a score of 1.67, followed by Australia (2.67), Japan (3.0), Hong Kong (3.40) and the United States (4.61).

The Worldwide Cost of Living Report from The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) is a biannual survey that compares more than 400 individual prices across 160 products and services. Singapore topped the ranks as the most expensive city to live in for 2017 (the fourth consecutive year). Although costs of living were high in Singapore, there were some areas of relative value compared to its regional peers, for categories such as personal care, household goods and domestic help. Singapore still remained the most expensive city in the world to buy and run a car and the second-priciest city in which to purchase clothes. In terms of liveability, Singapore was doing relatively well (ranked 46th and 35th in 2016 and 2017 respectively) according to the EIU Global Liveability Rankings. The EIU ranks cities by assigning each a rating for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories (such as stability, healthcare, culture and environment, education, and infrastructure). The ratings are then compiled and weighted to give a score out of 100. Along with Amsterdam, Reykjavik, Budapest and Montevideo, Singapore has seen an improvement in its liveability ranks for the past year. This was due largely to the relative stability within the countries these cities were located in.

Political rights and civil liberties

Although Singapore is ranked highly in terms of economic freedom, political freedom is less favorably assessed. In the 2017 report published by the international NGO Freedom House, Singapore was described as “partly free,” having a score of 4 on both civil liberties and political rights. A rating of 1 suggests the highest degree of freedom and 7 the least amount of freedom. In East Asia, the only four “free” nations are Taiwan, Mongolia, Japan and South Korea.

Global connections

The KOF Globalization Index uses three indicators for its rankings: economic globalization, social globalization and political globalization. For 2017, Singapore was the 20th (18th in 2011) most globalized nation overall. For economic globalization, Singapore was given the top spot in a field of 187 countries (97.77 points). This means that Singapore was the most economically globalized in terms of the extent of cross-border trade, investment and revenue flows in relation to GDP, and the impact of restrictions on trade and capital transactions. Singapore also came in first (91.61 points) in terms of social globalization. This was measured along dimensions such as (a) cross-border personal contexts in the form of telephone calls, letters, and tourist flows, (b) the size of the resident foreign population, (c) cross-border information flows, such as access to the Internet, TV and foreign press products, and (d) cultural proximity to the global mainstream. In sharp contrast, for political globalization, Singapore came in at the 134th position (77th in 2011). Political globalization for Singapore was assessed according to the number of embassies it has, its memberships in international organizations, participation in United Nations peace missions and the number of bilateral and multilateral agreements it has concluded.

Social progress

The Social Progress Index determines what it means to be a good society according to three dimensions: Basic Human Needs (food, water, shelter, safety); Foundations of Wellbeing (basic education, information, health and a sustainable environment); and Opportunity (do people have rights, freedom of choice, freedom from discrimination, and access to higher education?). These 12 components form the Social Progress framework. Singapore was unranked on the 2017 Social Progress Index due to insufficient data for the Basic Humans Needs dimension. However, its scorecard indicated top-ranked positions for GDP (gross domestic product) PPP (purchasing power parity) per capita and two aspects of the Basic Human Needs dimension (Water and Sanitation, and Shelter). Singapore was also ranked 3rd for Personal Safety (also Basic Human Needs) and 4th for Health and Wellness (Foundations of Wellbeing).

The 2017 Social Progress Index findings revealed that countries achieved widely divergent levels of social progress, even at similar levels of GDP per capita. For example, a country with high GDP per capita may do well on absolute social progress, reflecting high income, yet underperform relative to countries of similar income. Singapore has a similar GDP per capita to those of countries like Norway, Switzerland, United States, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Australia, Canada, Belgium, Iceland and Finland. However, compared to these countries, Singapore under-performed in the areas of Access to Basic Knowledge, and Access to Information and Communications (Foundations of Wellbeing), Personal Rights, and Tolerance and Inclusion (Opportunity).

Rationale for the QOL Surveys in Singapore

Research on wellbeing has been ongoing for many years around the world. Many varied concerns about wellbeing ranging from the economics of happiness to the eudaimonics of happiness have been addressed in academic circles, as well as in the policy-making arena. Researchers involved in wellbeing research have noted the limitations in using GNP (gross national product) and GDP as a measurement for or indicator of the quality of life because other aspects of wellbeing cannot be adequately accounted for with economic prosperity. We also recognize these limitations in a relatively wealthy country like Singapore and the need for a more holistic perspective of wellbeing.

As recommended in the Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, “[M]easures of subjective wellbeing provide key information about people’s quality of life. Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture people’s life evaluations, hedonic experiences and priorities in their own surveys” (p. 58). Currently, many well regarded worldwide surveys and indexes are administered by various national agencies and governments, international agencies (e.g., the Better Life Initiative by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], the World Happiness Report by the United Nations, etc.) and research institutes. Singapore has been a part of some worldwide surveys, notably the Gallup World Poll and the World Values Survey.

Some organizations collect their primary data through carefully crafted surveys, while others collate publicly available secondary data and then repackage and present the data in line with their own research agenda and aims. These surveys and indexes provide some form of comparative analyses across countries and regions. The usefulness of such analyses depends on many factors, including the completeness, accuracy and integrity of the data collated and the algorithms used in calculating the indexes. To facilitate comparative analyses, the surveys usually rely on common measures of subjective wellbeing. Some of these measures are established and validated scales related to happiness, enjoyment and satisfaction with life. While these common measures are beneficial in some way, it would be useful to have context-specific measures of subjective wellbeing to account for the unique characteristics of certain countries and to provide more in-depth insights.

Many countries and regions have their own versions of a quality of life and wellbeing survey that is focused on their particularistic needs and contexts (e.g., the European Social Survey). One of the forerunners is Bhutan, which instituted its own Gross Happiness Index with unique indicators such as Community Vitality, Cultural Diversity and Resilience, Time Use, and Ecological Diversity and Resilience. Some of these surveys and indexes are administered by government agencies, while others are from independently funded research agencies. For the Singaporean context, we have developed the QOL Surveys, which incorporate both common measures (more for comparison across countries) and context-specific measures (more for comparison across years within the country). Some of these context-specific measures are related to value orientations, satisfaction with life domains and satisfaction with living in Singapore. We have tried to collect data on the wellbeing of Singaporeans every five years since 1996. The QOL Surveys we conduct in Singapore provide us with an opportunity to obtain the indicators of subjective wellbeing that are relevant to Singaporeans and to support our analyses and interpretation when comparing our data with other research studies.

In addition to surveys to measure perceptions of subjective wellbeing and the development of indexes, many countries have incorporated happiness as part of their national goals. On July 19, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly formally approved a Bhutan-sponsored resolution (65/309) entitled “Happiness: Towards a Holistic Approach to Development.” In doing so, the Assembly formally recognized the pursuit of happiness as a fundamental human goal. From 2012, the United Nations had shared the World Happiness Report (comprising a suite of wellbeing measures and indicators) to monitor and compare levels and sources of happiness of its member countries on an annual basis.

In reciting Singapore’s pledge, the citizens of Singapore commit themselves to being one united people and to build a democratic society to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for the nation. It is imperative that those concerned about the wellbeing of Singaporeans, citizens, researchers and policy makers alike, consider the far-reaching implications of this pledge and its impact on Singaporean society. In our role as researchers, we have conducted various QOL Surveys and provided insights into what matters for Singaporeans in terms of their happiness and wellbeing. These insights have been shared at conferences and in books, book chapters and journal articles.

Research methodology

A person’s sense of wellbeing incorporates feelings of fulfillment, joy, happiness, pleasure and satisfaction. Objective indicators alone are not sufficient for a meaningful assessment of the quality of life. Subjective indicators are needed as people evaluate their life experiences according to their own values and beliefs about what is good and right in life, that is, through their own evaluations of what they experience. The 2016 QOL Survey (like its predecessors) relies mainly on subjective indicators (evaluations and perceptions). We also collect information on the demographic background of the respondents.

Data quality control

To ensure that good-quality data had been collected, quality control steps were taken at different stages of the research process. At the pre-data collection stage, additional pretests of the questionnaire were conducted, and changes were made to ensure that respondents understood the questions in the survey. Surveyors recruited for the fieldwork were also trained.

At the data collection stage, every survey submitted was checked thoroughly by the fieldwork manager for face validity and consistency. Error cases were flagged, and the respondent was contacted by phone for verification where a contact number was available. To allow sufficient time for appropriate corrective actions, surveys were checked daily by the fieldwork manager. Stringent in-house callbacks were conducted to verify surveys and to double-check answers. Call-backs were conducted on a minimum of 50 percent of surveyor returns for their initial batch and a minimum of 30 percent for subsequent batches. This stringent check was much higher than the industry average norm of 10 percent to 30 percent.

At the preanalysis stage, a minimum of 10 percent random checks were conducted against the data entered to ensure data entry accuracy. After the data was entered and physical checks completed, another round of checks was done using SPSS on the database. For instance, range checks were run to make sure that all answers given were within the range specified in the questionnaire. Respondents were contacted to clarify any inconsistencies found in the responses. All doubtful cases that were unfit for analysis were voided before the final database was verified ready for analysis.

The profile of respondents

The demographic background of the respondents in this study is presented in Table 1.2. As indicated, the gender balance was about equal. Close to two-thirds (60.9 percent) of the respondents were married, and 81.7 percent of the respondents were below 65 years of age. Chinese respondents accounted for almost 77 percent of the total number interviewed, with 14.5 percent of Malays, 7.3 percent of Indians and the remaining (1.2 percent) from other ethnic groups.

Respondents also had different educational levels, ranging from those with primary education or below (17.8 percent) to those with tertiary education and higher (25.9 percent). For household incomes, 562 respondents declined to answer this question, leaving a sample of 941 respondents. For the data analysis, we divided the respondents into four income brackets, and there were sufficient numbers for each income bracket as follows: 354 (low – S$3000 or less), 337 (medium-low – S$3001 to S$8000), 173 (medium-high – S$8001 to S$15,000) and 77 (high – those earning S$15,001 and more). The rationale will be discussed later in the Data Analyses section.

Representativeness of sample

The representativeness of the sample was examined by comparing certain important demographic characteristics with those of the population at large and the Singapore citizen population. The variables examined included gender, age and race. The demographic characteristics of the sample and those of the total Singapore population were very similar. There was a good balance of males and females in the sample, and the distribution was very close to that of the total population. The age distributions of the sample and Singapore’s total population were also very similar, with very small underrepresentation (0.1 percent) of the 30- to39-year age group (17.9 percent for total Singapore population versus 18 percent for our sample) and the 70-year and above age group (8.4 percent for total Singapore population versus 7.9 percent for our sample). In terms of race, the distributions of the sample and the total population were fairly close. The Chinese and the Malays were slightly overrepresented by 1.9 percent (74.3 percent for total Singapore population versus 76.2 percent for our sample) and 0.7 percent (13.3 percent for total Singapore population versus 14 percent for our sample), respectively, while the Indians and Others were underrepresented by 1.2 percent (9.1 percent for total Singapore population versus 7.9 percent for our sample) and 2.1 percent (3.3 percent for total Singapore population versus 1.2 percent for our sample), respectively.

Since our survey was for Singapore citizens only, the representativeness of the sample was also examined by comparing the same demographic characteristics with those of the Singapore citizen population. There was a good balance of males and females in the sample, and the distribution was very close to that of the Singapore citizen population. The age distributions of the sample and the Singapore citizen population were quite close, although the sample appeared to have a slight overrepresentation (2.9 percent) of the 30- to 39-year age group (15.1 percent for Singapore citizen population versus 18 percent for our sample). There were also a slight underrepresentation (1.3 percent) of the 60- to 69-year age group (14.2 percent for the Singapore citizen population versus 12.9 percent for our sample) and a slight underrepresentation (1.5 percent) for the 70-year and above age group (9.4 percent for Singapore citizen population versus 7.9 percent for our sample). In terms of race, the distributions of the sample and the Singapore citizen population were also quite close. Malays were slightly overrepresented by 1.6 percent (12.4 percent for the Singapore citizen population versus 14 percent for our sample), while the Indians and Others were very slightly underrepresented by 1.3 percent (9.2 percent for Singapore citizen population versus 7.9 percent for our sample) and 0.7 percent (1.9 percent for the Singapore citizen population versus 1.2 percent for our sample), respectively.

In view of the slight over- and underrepresentations, we weighted the data according to data on Singapore Citizens from the General Household Survey 2015 (Singapore Department of Statistics 2015) to make the sample data representative of the Singapore citizen population. Key dimensions of the Singapore citizen population in terms of age, gender and race were used to weight the survey sample data. The demographic profiles (for the weighted and unweighted datasets) are summarized in Table 1.3.

We also conducted a series of data analyses such as frequency distribution, cross-tabulation and computation of mean scores using the original and weighted samples to see whether there were any significant deviations in the responses due to the slight over- and underrepresentations. Our analyses revealed insignificant differences in the results derived from both sets of samples.

As the characteristics of the sample were generally close to that of the total population and the Singapore citizen population, and the differences in responses between the original and the weighted data were insignificant, the data was deemed representative and would subsequently be analyzed without using the weights.

Data analyses

In the following chapters, descriptive analyses involving frequency tabulations, means comparisons, cross-tabulations and the construction of indexes will be presented for the data collected. In addition, we conducted correlation analyses to examine the relationships among the variables investigated, regression analyses to examine the impact of input variables (e.g., personal values, trust and views about politics) on life satisfaction and the wellbeing indicators, and clustering analysis to differentiate the various types of Singaporeans.

We also tested for individual differences among demographic groups using age, education, gender, monthly household income, and marital status. Race was not used for analysis due to the very small number of respondents in two out of the four racial groups in Singapore. This was also the case in our past QOL studies (1996, 2001 and 2011). For education, we have three levels: low (those with no formal education or primary school education), medium (those with secondary/GCE O Level, postsecondary/ITE or GCE A Level/Diploma qualifications) and high (those with university or postgraduate degrees). For monthly household incomes, we have four income levels: low (those earning S$3000 or less), medium-low (those earning S$3001 to S$8000), medium-high (those earning S$8001 to S$15,000) and high (those earning S$15,001 and more). These levels were decided based on statistics from the General Household Survey 2015 (Singapore Department of Statistics 2015). The median household income from work was S$8666 (Singapore Department of Statistics 2015), and the income ceiling to qualify for public housing (executive condominium) was S$15,000. For marital status, we compared the responses of single and married people as the numbers for those who are divorced, widowed or separated were too small.

Overview of book chapters

Within each chapter, we first provide some theoretical background for the concepts and issues to be discussed by outlining relevant research studies and literature. We then detail the data analyses and findings of the 2016 QOL Survey, with comparison to our previous surveys in Singapore and other research studies where applicable.

In Chapter 2, we analyze the cognitive aspects of subjective wellbeing by looking at the satisfaction of Singaporeans with regard to various life domains and aspects of living in Singapore. Sources of individual differences among demographic groups are also discussed. For the 2016 QOL Survey, we report the results on the Satisfaction with Life Scale, which is regularly used in other surveys such as the European Social Values Survey.

In Chapter 3, we focus on the more affective aspects of subjective wellbeing and report on Singaporeans’ level of happiness, enjoyment, achievement, control, purpose and psychological flourishing. We also discuss sources of individual differences across demographic groups.

In Chapter 4, we investigate whether money can buy happiness in Singapore by looking for inflexion points in wellbeing indicators like happiness, enjoyment, achievement, control, purpose, satisfaction with life, satisfaction with the overall quality of life and satisfaction with the overall quality of life in Singapore across different income groups. We discuss the measure of economic wellbeing in terms of four questions (three were adopted from the Gallup–Healthways Well-Being Index), on whether one has enough money to buy the things one needs, to fulfil monthly loan commitments, to do things one wants to do, and to carry out a major financial transaction.

In Chapter 5, we use the List of Values and Schwartz’s Higher Order Values to assess the importance of certain personal values to all Singaporeans and specific demographic groups. Besides tracking changes in the List of Values over time, we also conduct regression analyses to examine the impact of the List of Values and Schwartz’s Higher Order Values on Singaporeans’ subjective wellbeing.

In Chapter 6, we discuss the value orientations of Singaporeans such as family values, eco-orientation, status consciousness, volunteerism, traditionalism, entrepreneurial spirit and materialism. We also use clustering analysis to define groups of Singaporeans based on these value orientations. Comparisons among the clusters of 2001, 2011 and 2016 provide interesting insights on how the value orientations of Singaporeans have evolved.

In Chapter 7, we examine Singaporeans’ level and variation of generalized trust and provide comparative analyses as to whether certain demographic segments are more trusting than others. We also discuss how generalized trust as a form of social capital has an impact on wellbeing (i.e., happiness, health and life satisfaction).

In Chapter 8, we first examine Singaporeans’ satisfaction with their rights as citizens and their views on various aspects of politics. We then discuss Singaporeans’ views on the role of the government and areas where they feel the government should allocate more resources. We also show how these perceptions vary across demographic groups and how they may influence the wellbeing of Singaporeans (i.e., overall quality of life in Singapore).

In Chapter 9, we conclude with an overview of the key findings of the QOL 2016 Survey and how the QOL Surveys in Singapore provide unique insights into the research on happiness and wellbeing. We also propose directives for future research in these areas.