If we want to be happy, looks like we have to take these
rankings with a pinch of salt!
World rankings
Do we like them?
Unhappiest lot in Asia, poor in bed, lack of press freedom, rude,
etc: Are Singaporeans that pathetic?
By Seah Chiang Nee. littlespeck.com
Jul 24, 2006
Few people pay as much attention to global rankings as the
competitive Singaporeans.
People here like to pitch themselves against the achievements - for
better or worse - of other countries.
They greet each revelation with a great deal of cheering or hair
tearing, whatever the case may be, and, of course, critics scour
the statistics for opportunities to hit out at the
government.
There are also occasions in which the mainstream media, misreading
its national service, has been known to play up the good news and
minimise - or leave out - the bad.
But when it opted recently to publish a report about Singapore
being ranked Asia's "unhappiest" country, it unwittingly ran a
misleading piece.
It was a British-based report that not only described Singapore as
Asia's unhappiest nation, but also graded it the 131st of 178
nations in the world.
The Happy Planet Index, compiled by the British think-tank New
Economics Foundation (NEF), named the top 10 countries as follows:
Vanuatu, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Panama, Cuba, Honduras,
Guatemala, El Salvador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
Vietnam is Asia's top ranking.
To describe these countries as the happiest in the world is, to put
it mildly, far from reality, and I was sure when I read it in the
newspapers that it wasn't the intention.
If Columbia, Cuba and the others were the globe's happiest places,
there would surely be millions wanting to live there to share their
happiness. Instead, its largely poverty-stricken people are
emigrating in droves.
On the other hand, Britain came in at 108th while the US ranked
worst than Singapore - at 150th.
The misleading report (a radio forum later put it right) set
Singaporeans off the wrong track. A visit to the original website
soon explained to me that it was about environmental efficiency
rather than human happiness.
It clearly explains: "The Index doesn't reveal the 'happiest'
country in the world. It shows the relative efficiency with which
nations convert the planet's natural resources into long and happy
lives for their citizens."
For the government, however, no two global rankings are equal in
importance. It depends on the subject.
It appears to be interested only in rankings on the economy and
social achievements but not those critical ones about press freedom
or human liberties (dismissed by Lee Kuan Yew with "we will not
allow foreigners to tell us what to do".)
In the past 40 years Singapore has been ranked very well. It is the
world's most global city and is graded the world's best in economic
competitiveness, productivity and battling corruption.
It also has the world's best airport and the busiest container port
(by cargo volume) as well as the highest Internet penetration. All
these were widely reported by the local media.
But Singapore also has a reputation or poor rankings in
non-economic fields such as: -
· Press freedom. Dismally ranked 140th out of 167 countries by
Reporters without Borders,
· Executions. One of the world's highest rates (on per capita),
having hanged 400 criminals between 1990-2004).
· Sex performance. Second last out of 41 countries (2005 Durex
Global Sex Survey), which wouldn't have bothered the government had
it not been for its very low procreation).
· Emigration. Singapore has an average outflow rate of 26.11
migrants per 1,000 citizens, the second highest in the world - next
only to East Timor (51.07), according to an unverified
website.
· Courtesy. It is ranked a poor 30th out of 35 countries and now -
the Happy Planet Index of 130th out of 178 nations.
Be that as it may, the index has cranked up much head-nodding among
people who agree that Singaporeans are an unhappy lot despite their
comparative wealth.
"Look at the MRT commuters and workers at Shenton Way with their
long, sour faces."
Ironically, the government was appealing to the citizens to greet
visiting delegates of the IMF-World Bank meeting due in September
with "four million smiles". A tough act to achieve!
What's the problem? Everyone has his pet reason, ranging from
"unbearable" pressures of life to overly high expectations to an
incurable national trait of excessive worrying - in good times or
bad.
Social trends leave people unsmiling; divorce is rising and there
is an average of one suicide a day.
"Most Singaporeans don't know how to be happy. Either they are
struggling or, if they're not, they are worried about something or
other," someone commented. Its small size magnifies these
potentials.
Humour has long become a casualty to the unceasing reminders by the
authorities to work hard or suffer the consequences.
Costs are always rising, unemployment dole doesn't exist and
besides, the leaders - straight-laced people who are unable to
laugh at themselves - also set the tone for the country.
Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong quipped, "We even take our fun
seriously."
One cynic described Singapore as "a Disneyland without the
laughter", where humour is not allowed, referring to a blogger
whose newspaper column was banned because he wrote a satire piece
on the rising cost of living.
Some of Singapore's neighbours view us as too serious and
humourless, just like the Germans and the Japanese, who had turned
their war-torn countries into world giants in a single
generation.
They did it armed with a single-minded purpose and extreme hard
work - not a light-hearted approach.
Singapore, too, has also run an endless "marathon" with the same
degree of urgency, except now it has to run faster because other
runners are catching up. This could explain the long faces
here.
This article was published in The Sunday Star on Jul 23, 2006
