Believe it or not, Taiwan’s first national happiness index shows the country rating close to the middle among the 37 countries assessed, ranking higher than Japan and South Korea in Asia. However, upon reflection, one might ponder if the index reflects the true experience of people living here.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) told officials in February last year to gauge the nation’s living conditions. On Friday, the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) released the results of more than a year of research on people’s degree of satisfaction with their wellbeing, with Taiwan taking 19th place among 34 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), plus Russia and Brazil.
The government’s national happiness index gauges satisfaction with healthcare, safety, housing, income, jobs, education, environment, governance and work-life balance. DGBAS officials said the results showed that Taiwanese enjoy a “moderate level” of happiness as measured against their peers in other countries. In addition, Taiwan’s overall happiness score of 6.64 points is higher than that of most of the Asian areas assessed, except Hong Kong and Singapore, which are not OECD nations, the DGBAS said.
The government claims the launch of a national happiness index is part of its efforts to go beyond using only GDP growth to perceive public happiness and move closer to people’s daily lives. However, the DGBAS’ research has left many people shaking their heads, considering their persistent concerns about stubbornly stagnant salaries, rising housing prices, falling spending power, pension worries and fear of jobs being lost to companies abroad.
Moreover, regardless of how hard the DGBAS worked to get an idea of people’s subjective perceptions and their happiness, and regardless what elements the agency took into consideration in designing the index, it is a fact that the public sense of wellbeing is closely linked to the government’s performance and, in this case, that government inefficiency and lack of direction has created more anxiety about the future, not less.
Perhaps, at a time when the nation’s wealth gap is widening, youth unemployment remains high and the once robust economy has stalled, the government does not want the public to know how deep despair runs in this nation. Rather, it seems the government aims to tell the public through the release of the “happiness” data that their lives are not too bad in that Japan ranks 22nd and South Korea 28th in the index.
This is not a good response to the public’s expectations about the future and will not help eliminate anxiety, because some results of the research — like Taiwan ranking fourth in the income category and placing third for safety — deviate from people’s day-to-day experience.
People work more and earn less, but feel happier? How can it be? Unless Taiwanese are exceptionally good at finding happiness during hard times and are capable of enduring what others cannot, the government has a responsibility to tell the public how it came up with data that seem inaccurate and hence risks credibility. Yet, as dubious as the research may be, the more important question of what the government will do next remains. There has been no clarity on how the government will move forward to deliver better policies to improve people’s wellbeing, based on the research results.
Whether government officials like it or not, public service involves public scrutiny and so does the compilation of the national happiness index, even if the research turns out to not have been statistically invalid. The point is that the government needs to be closely in touch with the public’s true experiences.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030