We ended 2025 with a robust 4.8% economic growth which is a remarkable performance by any measure given the fact that we faced global trade wars and tariffs from the USA, had to navigate global headwinds and yet, we have performed better than most countries. But the cost-of-living pressures, youth employment issues amongst others are making some Singaporeans a little cynical about the PM Wong’s claim to success.
One Country, One People but Two Tales.
I was going through the comment sections of Wong’s New Year speech and encountered a persistent refrain: If things are going so well, why doesn’t it feel like it? Why are transport fares rising? Why do fresh graduates worry about securing stable jobs? Why do seniors say their lives haven’t improved? Why do many feel squeezed even as headline inflation stabilises?
Of course, at first pass it comes across as mere cynicism. But dig deeper, a persistent disconnect ensues, between macroeconomic success and lived reality. They say, its trickledown economics and as most of my Singaporean brothers would say, “trickledown, go where?”
Singapore’s growth in 2025 was driven significantly by sectors that don’t always translate into broad labour absorption or wage uplift across the board. Manufacturing and trade-related sectors bounced back, but hiring sentiment across many industries remained cautious. Companies are expanding — just not always expanding headcount. Younger workers see contract roles instead of permanent careers. Older workers worry their skills don’t match the economy policymakers celebrate.
Then comes the lived economy, not the spreadsheet economy.
Transport fares edged up. Rents climbed before stabilising. Daily necessities feel costlier. Families navigating childcare, eldercare, healthcare and mortgages do not benchmark their stress levels against GDP growth. They benchmark them against their wallets.
So while official statistics declare moderation in inflation, citizens experience something different: a tightening of margins and the psychological weight of constant price adjustments. It is this gap — not just economic but emotional — that shapes public sentiment.
Overlay that with the always-charged topic of foreign manpower, and frustration becomes sharper. Even in periods of strong growth, locals ask whether they are first in line to benefit. “Better outcome than expected” rings hollow to someone struggling to secure a job, or watching opportunities seemingly drift elsewhere.
This is where leadership narratives must tread carefully. When politicians speak confidently of resilience and success, but ground experience feels brittle, citizens do not hear reassurance — they hear detachment.
To be fair, Singapore’s economic stewardship has indeed delivered resilience. The numbers matter. They give the country fiscal room to support households, businesses and social programmes. But resilience is not just about aggregate outcomes. It is about whether citizens feel secure, upwardly mobile, and valued within the national story.
That is the dissonance today.
Singapore doesn’t face an economic crisis. It faces a trust and translation challenge, translating national performance into shared wellbeing, and acknowledging openly that growth without felt inclusion breeds frustration, not pride.
If 2025 was about beating forecasts, 2026 must be about something harder: ensuring success is not only claimed, but genuinely experienced — not just by the economy, but by the people who live inside it.
