A recent wave of international rankings has put Singapore in the spotlight, designating the city-state as the third happiest city in the world, behind only Copenhagen and Zurich according to the 2025 Happy City Index (CNBC). Yet, this glowing reputation has triggered a complex reaction among Singaporeans themselves, echoing a broader debate across Asia—including Thailand—about what true happiness means in highly structured societies.
Singapore’s strong position on the index, published by the Institute for the Quality of Life, was determined by an extensive assessment across six key categories: citizens’ well-being, governance, environment, economy, health, and mobility. Notably, 2025 marks the first year the index included health in its evaluation—an addition reflecting increased global concerns about physical and mental wellness after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Beyond well-structured metrics and glowing international scores, however, everyday reality presents a more nuanced picture. Social media erupted with skepticism from Singaporean residents, questioning whether excessive work hours, dense urban crowds, and the city’s high cost of living are compatible with a sense of genuine happiness (Channel NewsAsia).
The ongoing debate invites important questions for neighboring countries, especially Thailand, which faces its own version of the happiness puzzle as policymakers, educators, health professionals, and citizens navigate an increasingly urban and competitive environment.
Understanding how happiness is measured offers insight into this paradox. The World Happiness Report—a leading authority published with data from the Gallup World Poll—relies heavily on self-assessment surveys, asking respondents to rate their own lives (Wikipedia). The 2025 edition kept Finland in the top national spot for the eighth consecutive year, while Singapore’s standing in city-level indices reflects strong performance in measurable indicators such as public health, education, low crime rates, and efficient governance (World Happiness Report).
But as commentators and researchers note, happiness remains a deeply subjective concept, influenced by cultural context, societal expectations, and personal aspirations. International rankings often use quantifiable proxies to gauge well-being: positive emotions, strong social networks, economic stability, and freedom from want or stress. While these offer useful benchmarks for policymakers, critics warn that overly rigid reliance on such metrics may mask underlying stressors that formal surveys do not capture.
A University of Liverpool sociologist highlights in a recent commentary the disconnect between statistical happiness and daily experience, warning that “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” This echoes Goodhart’s Law and suggests that chasing top ranks in happiness can paradoxically increase pressure and stress on the population. The practice of ‘chasing the ranking,’ whether for education, health, or overall well-being, can lead both to targeted improvements and to the neglect of unquantifiable but vital aspects of daily life.
Singapore’s government has acknowledged growing concern over mental health, especially among young people. According to a Channel NewsAsia report, top policymakers have recently emphasized the need to “redouble efforts” to understand and address youth mental health, as cases of anxiety, depression, and burnout have risen sharply (Channel NewsAsia). The Singapore Tourism Board has even announced wellness tourism initiatives—highlighting both the recognition of mounting stress and an effort to turn the city’s health focus into a draw for global visitors (National Geographic).
This duality is not unique to Singapore. Thailand’s rapidly modernizing cities, increased social media engagement, and rising educational and economic aspirations have likewise propelled similar debates among Thais about the meaning and attainability of happiness in the context of social and institutional pressures.
Thai health professionals and educators can draw several lessons from Singapore’s experience. First, the inclusion of mental health in public well-being metrics underscores the need for comprehensive health strategies—not just physical, but emotional and social. Second, skepticism about statistical rankings highlights the importance of engaging directly with citizens’ lived experiences, not only their survey responses. In Thailand, where close-knit family networks and vibrant community life have traditionally anchored well-being, new approaches must blend the strengths of Thai culture (such as collective resilience and mindfulness-based practices) with modern insights about stress, digital exposure, and urban living.
Historical context is informative here. Thailand, like Singapore, has long participated in regional efforts to define and advance well-being, exemplified by the country’s legacy of Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP), championed by national leaders as a guide to balanced living and sustainable happiness. While other indices may prioritize GDP growth or infrastructure, Thailand’s approach emphasizes moderation, self-reliance, and community support—a framework respected worldwide but occasionally criticized for lacking measurable outcomes. The lesson from Singapore’s happiness paradox is that neither approach alone is sufficient: measurable improvements and subjective fulfillment must go hand in hand.
Looking ahead, the critique raised by Singaporean commentators—that social comparison and relentless pursuit of material or status milestones may fuel a hedonic treadmill of fleeting satisfaction—serves as a cautionary tale for Thai society’s own pursuit of well-being. For instance, psychologists identify “hedonic adaptation” as a key reason why gains in income, achievement, or social status offer only short-term boosts to happiness (Verywell Mind). Long-term contentment, by contrast, emerges from meaning, relationships, and purpose.
If Thai policymakers, health leaders, and educators wish to promote deeper, more resilient happiness, they would do well to look beyond rankings and scores. Instead, they should promote environments where people feel valued, connected, and mentally healthy. This means supporting mental health services in schools and workplaces, reducing stigma around seeking help, and investing in community-building and creative activities. Public discourse should encourage diverse definitions of happiness, so that all Thais—regardless of economic or academic standing—can find and pursue fulfillment on their own terms.
What can ordinary Thai readers do? First, it’s crucial to recognize that happiness is both highly personal and shaped by the broader environment. Take time to identify what brings meaning and satisfaction, rather than measuring yourself against social media or international benchmarks. Engage in open conversations about mental well-being with friends and family. Where challenges arise, seek support without hesitation—Thailand now has expanding resources for mental health and wellness, including government helplines and local NGOs. Finally, champion efforts that build social trust and community: happiness is more sustainably achieved with others than in isolation.
The Singapore story underscores a truth that resonates strongly in Thailand: while rankings and reports can shine a useful spotlight on challenges and strengths, they are not—and never will be—the final word on happiness. In the quest for well-being, both nations are learning that balancing measurable progress and personal fulfillment is a nuanced, ongoing journey.
Sources:
Channel NewsAsia commentary
CNBC report on the Happy City Index
World Happiness Report overview
Channel NewsAsia: Singapore youth mental health
National Geographic: Singapore wellness tourism
Verywell Mind: Hedonic adaptation