In the debate over Gross Domestic Product 
as an indicator of happiness, a point of contention really only arises when Singapore's.
 
GDP growth is taken as the overriding contributor to the population's happiness. 
   It also must be asked what happiness is before we can, with some accuracy, take an abstract, 
element and bring it into an objective policy context. Happiness, like freedom, connotes 
different things to different people, so whose interpretation is to be the relevant focal point? 
  So instead of focussing on an abstraction, it would be better to ask the Government to
simply act with equal concern for all citizens.

  For instance, if any government were to curtail welfare programmes or decline to
expand them for various reasons, there must be accountability to the poor, the ones affect-
ed, that they have been treated, nonetheless,with equal importance as others have been.
  It does not mean that everyone should have the same wealth or that we are equal
in everything. What is important is that each life comes to something. Essential well-being
is an important moral and political concept.

Does it mean one's overall welfare is a matter of the Government successfully fulfilling
 one's preferences (happiness)? Certainly, itdoes not mean assisting in extravagant, unjus-
tified preferences such as owning a Ferrari or indulging at the casino. And one principle of
equality is that part of the responsibility of ensuring well-being lies with the person.
  But if more can be done to assist the poor and the middle classes, it should be done.
  I hope any perspective put forward on thisi n Parliament will be examined objectively.
  There can never be complete happiness, but the Government must ensure that
it shows equal concern for the fate of all citizens. 

Letter From Dudley Au