 |
By Huichieh
on 17 Jul 2006 12:30 PM Haloscan Comments Closed |
In the recent New Economic Foundation's Happy Planet Index study of 178 countries (based on life expectancy, consumption levels and happiness", Singapore ended up at the bottom position in Asia. Now what I want to discuss is not really about the index, but since there has been some talk about it, let me simply highlight some bits from the index.
A brief scan of the index reveals that the top ranking developed country is Austria, coming in at #61, then we have Iceland, Switzerland and Italy at #64-66, the Netherlands at #70, Luxembourg at #74, Belgium at #78, Germany at #81, New Zealand #94, Japan #95, Demark #99, the UK #108, Canada #111, Ireland #113, Norway #115, Sweden #119, Finland #123, France #129, and then we have Singapore at #131, after which there is still Australia at #139 and the USA at #150. So we are a bit short of France and a bit better than Australia on a Happiness index. And just for kicks: Palestine comes in at #45. Draw your own conclusions. [added note: despite how it has been discussed in the press, the HPI is not really a happiness index at all; see Dan's comment.]
But I am no expert. Will Wilkinson, who actually follows "happiness research", has a long knockdown of NEF's HPI.
But as I said, what I want to discuss is not really about the silly index, but something else.
I read on Friday's ST Forum Page a letter ("Economic development = happiness development?"). The lead in: The NEF's HPI, Vanuatu (I wonder if the writer watched ""Survivor: Vanuatu - Islands of Fire") tops the index, "weathy Singapore has the dubious honor of occupying the bottom position in Asia". The writer (Francis Lim Khek Gee) then made the following point:
In the context of other surveys that rank Singapore low on the scales of courtesy and media freedom, this latest study on happiness and well-being should jolt Singaporeans and the Government to re-think the goals and direction of Singapore's development. While most people would not doubt the need for Singapore as a country to develop and progress, what is missing is an open, public debate about the ends of development. In other words, the fundamental question we should ask is this: What sort of life do Singaporeans want?Now I want to be clear about something. I agree absolutely that Singaporeans should be mindful of the question: just what is a good life. I am also sold on the contention that there should be more "open, public debate about the ends of development". I am mostly sold on the notion that we--depending on just what is this "we" referring to (see below)--should "strive to be the happiest place on earth". But there is something that is just barely suggested in the letter that I am not sold on, not by a long shot.If we agree that a country's pursuit of development should ultimately enable its citizens to live a fulfilling and happy life, we must get beyond the usual economic yardsticks and think seriously about what we might conceive of as the good life in Singapore. It is only when we know what sort of life we want to lead that we are able to discern the best type of society we need to achieve it. In our desire to be the hub of everything, should we not also strive to be the happiest place on earth?
What exactly is the role of the government with respect to the happiness of Singaporeans--that is, the happiness of individual Singaporeans, families, groups of friends, etc--and not the (fictional) collective "Singapore-as-a-whole", which can only be "happy" in a different sense in which individuals can be happy. (There is a ironic point about this at Plato, Republic 419a-421c, but I'll not digress). Is it the government's job, responsibility, mandate to make us happy?
Or is it something more modest than that? For instance, to secure the necessary conditions for the citizens' pursuit of their own happiness, and to coordinate that pursuit so that people, in pursuing happiness (however they define it, whether individualistic or not), do not thereby trample on or otherwise oppress each other? (If you go with this, then you are more inclined to agree with the Declaration of Independence when it says that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" so as to secure the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
If, on the other hand, you think that it really is the government's job to secure our happiness--and not just the necessary conditions for its pursuit given justice--then the question becomes this: Given that we don't all agree on what makes for a good life, one what counts as happiness (one's man's elixir is another man's poison), just what is it as far as tangible stuff goes is the government suppose to secure? But more importantly, how does this not lead to a form of tyranny? (A scene in the 1980 Flash Gordon movie comes to mind: during the forced wedding of Dale Arden and Emperor Ming the Merciless, two rocket ships can be seen outside the window towing banners. The first banner says "All creatures will be happy." The second says "On pain of death.")
But if the more modest position is the right one to take, does it not make sense to say that--insofar as the government has any role with respect to promoting the citizens' happiness--it is precisely to encourage economic development, employment, in other words, encouraging the abundance of all that low and solid stuff that we can all use (in varying amounts, no doubt), whatever our conception of happiness? If that is the case, are we not back at square one?
