Another criticism of the developmental assumption came from economists and philosophers (nobel prize winner Amartya Sen is one of them) who argued that 'quality of life' is a more important than economic development in determining human well-being. The components for 'quality of life' are many and scholars have debated on the merits of different combinations. I give two important examples of 'quality of life' indices here. The UN Human Development Index measures poverty, literacy, education and life expectancy. The Economist's Quality of Life (QOL) index is made up of material well-being, health, family relations, job security, social and community activities, political freedom and security, and gender equality.

The Happy Planet Index attempts to combine both criticisms. The value assumption of the index is that it is better for society and human well-being in the long run if more happiness can be achieved with less resources consumed, that people will be happy when the planet in which we live in is 'happy' too. The link between human well-being and resources consumed is therefore well grounded in the growing scholarly literature and emerging international norms concerning the quality of life and the environment.

A 'High Maintenance' Happy Singapore

For Singapore, the study shows that we appear to consume a lot of resources and are relatively happier. This result is meaningless by itself, because one can come to a false conclusion that we are relatively happier because we consume more resources. The comparison with Malaysia on p. 24 is apt and correct. Happiness (life satisfaction + life expectancy) is similar but we consume much more resources than Malaysians (Singapore's ecological footprint is more than double that of Malaysia). Singaporeans thus seem to be consuming much more than is necessary to be happy. At least for the Singapore case, the index does not show we are not necessarily happier when we consume a lot of resources, but that we don't need to consume so much to be happy, that our consumption is excessive. The report argues that Singaporeans should therefore try to be more like Malaysians rather than the other way round, because comparisons such as the Singapore-Malaysian comparison suggest 'it is possible to produce high levels of well-being without excessive consumption'.

While I agree with the Singapore-Malaysia comparison, I think the conclusion is hasty because it is missing a crucial step. This step is linked to the assumption underlying the report's comparison, which is that Singapore and Malaysia societies are culturally similar. There is an important difference. Can Singaporeans be as happy as Malaysians if we cut down our consumption of resources to their level at this point in time? My opinion is no, Singaporeans would not be as happy as Malaysians if we cut down our consumption now. In a way, Singaporeans have been spoilt by economic success and the 'Singaporean dream'. Levels of life satisfaction are relative to cultural expectations concerning the quality of life and these cultural expectations have diverged since the two countries separated in 1965. The Singaporean dream, promoted no less by the one-party government that has ruled Singapore for nearly five decades, has raised our expectations concerning 'the good life' and this factor partly accounts for the higher rate of consumption by Singaporeans.

In other words, because of the belief in the Singaporean dream, Singaporeans seem to need to consume more just to be happy. On the other hand, Malaysians seem to be satisfied with less, and from our point of view in the rat race of our society we see them as being 'more relaxed'. The rat race is popularly phrased as the pursuit of the 5 'C's: cash, credit card, condominium, car, and country club. But over the years, there has emerged another 'C', consumerism, or shopping! We have become a consumerist society and our lifestyles have changed to one revolving around work and consumption. To put it very simply, Singaporeans no longer work to live and live to work, but work to consume, and consume because we don't find fulfillment in our work or we work too hard. Therefore, to maintain our happiness and reduce our excessive consumption, it is necessary to change our mindset - the Singaporean dream - and lifestyle first.

Lessons from the HPI: Life at the 131st Spot

I think the index is a truly innovative attempt to combine two important issues as mentioned in my response to your first question. Those issues are important socio-ethical issues for the international community. Having achieved a good quality of life as measured by 'life satisfaction' and 'life expectancy', Singapore now need to consider how we can contribute to the global effort to reduce and resolve the environmental and socio-ecological problems facing the world. As the findings show, our ecological footprint is too big. Excessive consumption is not only destructive to the environment, but it is also detrimental to those societies and communities from which we draw resources for our excessive consumption. The notion of 'ecological footprint' is poignant because our big footprint connotes how, as a society, we are 'stepping on' or damaging the environment and communities in the Southeast Asian region.

The most important lesson to draw from the findings is that we need to find less ecologically destructive ways to be happy, as individuals and generally as a society. Instead of subscribing unthinkingly to the Singaporean dream, we need to create our individual own Singaporean dreams weighing our own individual aspirations and desires with ethical concerns concerning how our actions and choices affect the environment and other people around the world. We need to balance our consumption with these concerns.

For example, if you decide you must have hardwood furniture, try your best to get pieces made of wood from certified sustainably-managed forests. If you must have your cup of coffee in the morning, try your best to drink organic and fair-trade coffee. At the same time, we can make the effort to reduce wastage and pollution in our consumption practices: make a commitment to recycle, take more public transport, reduce the use of plastic bags when grocery shopping, and so on. On the societal level, we need to change our mindset from our narrow obsession with economic growth to the wider and more humane concern with sustainable development. Politically, our government, with the aid of environmental non-governmental organizations in Singapore, has to cut down on industrial carbon dioxide emissions and enact more green legislation for better corporate responsibility towards the environment.

A Methodological Conclusion

Two methodological issues affect the research. The first concerns the ecological footprint of Singapore. The data is based on the World Wildlife Fund's (WWF) Living Planet Index. There was some controversy some years back concerning the 1998 and 1999 WWF's Living Planet Index when Singapore was ranked first and fourth respectively for per capita carbon dioxide emissions based on data concerning 1995 and 1996 emissions, 35 tons in 1995 and 20 tons in 1996 compared to the world average of 4 tons. The Straits Times reported the figures (3/10/1998, 18/9/1999). The Ministry of the Environment subsequently challenged the index, saying the 1996 figures should be 10.63 tons, because Singapore was a major transport hub and oil refining center, and emissions from these industries should be excluded (18/9/1999). If we take the Ministry's word, the ecological footprint of Singapore would be reduced significantly. After this controversy, the WWF dropped Singapore from the Living Planet Index citing lack of information.

As data on Singapore is not available from the WWF Index, the ecological footprint of Singapore in the HPI report is derived from good, statistically strong estimations that make use of several indicators including carbon dioxide emissions (p. 48; 13.74 tons for Singapore in 2002 according to the World Bank database, see note 103 on p. 55), which may be contested by the Ministry in the same manner as the it has contested the WWF figures. But in my opinion, it would be a mistake to exclude those industrial emissions because (1) if international and oil-refining emissions were excluded, a large proportion of carbon dioxide emissions in the world would remain unaccounted for, (2) as long as the Singaporean population reaps economic benefits from these industries, just like any other industries that consume resources and emits pollution, the emissions should be considered as part of the consumption and therefore a part of the ecological footprint of the Singaporean population. Therefore, the HPI's measurement of Singapore's ecological footprint should stand despite any potential controversy over it.

The life satisfaction measurement is a subjective measurement, meaning that it measures the subjective feeling of satisfaction people have with their lives. As I have pointed out, the level of satisfaction is subjective to the cultural expectations that a society have in general, and also the varying cultural expectations that an individual has at different points in his or her life and in very different social contexts. While indications show that the life satisfaction measurement is rather reliable, this subjectiveness remains unsatisfactory for social scientific demands for objective measures. The HPI report acknowledges this (pp. 45-46). The Economist's 2005 QOL index report also mentions this (p. 1) and proceeds to create a good objective measure of QOL. If this QOL measure is used instead of life satisfaction, Singapore's relative HPI to the countries in Asia may very well be higher than the current standing. In the New Economics Foundation's HPI report, Singapore ranked fourth in Asia in terms of life satisfaction, but in the Economist's report, Singapore ranked first in Asia (p. 4).

In my opinion, both subjective and objective measures should be combined, as the objective QOL measure captures concrete social, political and economic variables leading to happiness, but do not capture the psychological and cultural dimensions of happiness that are captured by the life satisfaction measure. I suspect that combining the measures will moderate the results to make it more reliable and accurate, but will not change the HPI standings too significantly.

In conclusion, the methodological issues are not major enough to render the HPI results invalid or even suspect. The HPI is a good innovative start to measuring the two intersecting important issues, as I have mentioned. The index will definitely improve with further tweaking, but as it stands, it is a good indicator of where each country stands in relation to each other in keeping happiness of the people balanced with ecological sustainability.