y not engaged at work is better

Editor’s note: This is the first in a two-part opinion on the topic of disengagement at work. Read the other here.“This is an alarm call, so wake up, wake up now” sang Bjork in 1997. One can imagine these lyrics echoing in Singapore boardrooms and business press offices every year when Gallup releases its global workplace report: Low engagement numbers prompt calls to fix organisational culture and re-engage the workforce.This year, 2026, is no exception. At just 14 per cent against a South-east Asian regional average of 25 per cent and a global average of 20 per cent, Singapore sits near the bottom of the global engagement table. The urge to cry wolf and treat this as a crisis is understandable. It is also a partial interpretation of the real situation and the data.Before reaching for the panic button, let us consider a different possibility – that Singapore’s low engagement levels may not just reflect apathy or dysfunction, but rather point to a recalibration of how Singaporeans relate to work in an always-on, digitally mediated economy. In other words, the lack of engagement may reflect a deliberate effort to redraw boundaries and preserve energy, and a more pragmatic stance towards work.Singapore has already seen signs of this boundary-setting instinct. In 2024, the Ministry of Education said teachers need not share their personal phone numbers or respond to work messages after school hours, except in emergencies. Likewise, tripartite guidelines that took effect in December 2024 require employers to formally consider employee requests for flexible adjustments to work hours, location or workload.The crisis narrative: Alarm call or crying wolf?If Singapore’s workforce was genuinely in trouble, one would expect to see distress rippling across all the indicators. But that is not what Gallup’s data shows. Loneliness, a marker of psychological disconnection, comes in at just 13 per cent, which is below regional and global averages.Most strikingly, 40 per cent of Singapore workers report to be thriving in life, ahead of South-east Asian (36 per cent) and global (34 per cent) averages. This is a peculiar profile for a disengaged workforce. Truly disengaged people usually would not report above-average life satisfaction. So, what is the data saying overall? There is, indeed, some cause for concern. At 43 per cent, Singapore’s daily stress rate is nearly double the regional average, although it is close to the global mean of 40 per cent. This is reflected in other indicators, such as that most Singaporeans are not getting enough sleep.But the overall picture suggests that workers may be protecting themselves by keeping more emotional distance from work, maintaining performance under pressure precisely because they are not staking their whole identity on their occupation.Indeed, what Gallup’s data actually describes is a workforce that has stopped treating its job as the primary source of meaning and identity, while remaining quite satisfied with life overall. This is work-life segregation as a coping strategy and a growing body of research suggests it may be a good one.Checking in and outMy collaborators and I have studied knowledge workers who were working from home. We discovered that those who used flexibility in their work hours achieved both higher well-being and productivity. Structuring the day so that work is not one uninterrupted 9-to-5 block, but one of many tasks woven into daily life, can help people to better cope with both professional and personal demands.For instance, parents of young children may wake earlier to work remotely, send the children to school, then resume work later in the morning and finish before the usual peak-hour rush. More importantly, the intermingling of work with other daily activities is not a sign of low commitment, but rather a practical way of managing competing demands that allows workers in the 21st century to remain functional across all their roles.In line with this, renowned organisational psychologist Sabine Sonnentag has spent decades studying what allows workers to sustain high performance over time. The answer she found is clear: Psychological detachment – the ability to mentally disengage from work when not working – is a strong predictor of sustained energy, well-being, and performance at work.A workforce that keeps its emotional investment in work calibrated, rather than maximised, may be doing exactly what the evidence suggests. In the era of expectations of constant connection and availability, the ability to mentally clock out is not a symptom of laziness or lack of interest, but a form of self-regulation. Even more, it is a competitive advantage that affords sustained performance.Out with the old, in with the (disengaged) newAnother important factor to consider when interpreting the data from the Gallup report is the ongoing generational shift in the workforce. Millennials and Gen Z have a different outlook on work than their parents and grandparents did. My research on generational differences in work values suggests that, although the priorities of millennials and Gen Z are not markedly different from those of their predecessors, the level of their expectations is higher across the board.And the higher the expectations, the easier for organisations to under-deliver, which surely does not help boost engagement. Younger workers are also less willing to tolerate rigid hours, such as being expected to stay in the office until a fixed time, especially after their work is done. Many would rather be judged by output than by presenteeism.Yet, this is not an alarm call, but rather a reflection of the ongoing value shift and change in what workers expect from employers and vice versa. The lack of engagement may simply reflect a more honest account of what work is and is not in 2026.Indeed, the younger workforce is generally more dynamic and mobile and less committed to the “one job for life” that their elders espoused, but, to be fair, this is as much the outcome of sociocultural trends as it is of an organisation-driven restructuring of employment relationships that has been ongoing for decades. Most importantly, these workers are still able to do their job well and live a good life overall.More on this topicDisengagement at work may endanger Singapore’s AI pushOnly 1 in 10 young Singapore workers is engaged at work: Gallup reportYou’ve got a European friend in meAnother important clarification is that Gallup’s engagement measure captures emotional investment in one’s job – namely the degree to which workers feel absorbed in, enthusiastic about and committed to their work. This is a high bar, which reflects deep psychological and emotional investment in work. Is this actually desirable?In a hyper-competitive, fast-paced environment like Singapore, emotional enthusiasm for one’s job can be an exhausting commodity to maintain. Moreover, what is not captured by Gallup’s measure are more relevant metrics, such as whether workers are doing their jobs well, living good lives or contributing meaningfully to the economy.Another caveat of the engagement metrics is that cultural differences play an important role. Americans tend to exhibit high engagement (31 per cent) because being emotionally involved in one’s job is seen as a necessary ingredient for professional success there. But this is not the case everywhere. Europe registers just 12 per cent engagement on Gallup’s scale – even lower than Singapore – but almost half of the workforce (49 per cent) is thriving.In a hyper-competitive, fast-paced environment like Singapore, emotional enthusiasm for one’s job can be an exhausting commodity to maintain.  PHOTO: UNSPLASHYet, no dominant narrative describes Europeans as a workforce in crisis just because the Swiss (8 per cent engaged) completely check out on the weekend or because the Dutch (14 per cent engaged) do not set meetings that start at 4pm or later. A concrete possibility is that disengagement has become a cultural characteristic in Singapore as much as in many European countries. The European example is a particularly illuminating one because it shows low engagement does not automatically mean poor outcomes.Reframing the questionSingapore’s employers and policymakers would do well to resist the impulse of treating a 14 per cent engagement figure as a number to be driven upwards at any cost. Low engagement should not automatically be read as a failure.Rather than asking how to raise engagement, the more useful question is whether workers feel that the current conditions are sustainable: Are they recovering well, living meaningful lives and performing well on the job? Can they keep doing so? If so, pushing for ever-higher engagement may not help, and could even undermine the balance that allows people to perform sustainably.A good takeaway is that employers should focus less on emotional buy-in as a target in itself, and more on whether workers are productive, healthy and able to sustain their work performance over time. On that note, the more appropriate Bjork quote would be, “There’s more to life than this”.•Federico Magni is an assistant professor at Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University. An organisational behaviour expert, he researches creativity, team dynamics and human responses to AI at the workplace.More on this topicWhy mandatory office time isn’t going to workWith my own desk at work comes a sense of belonging 

skin conditions

I sighed as Mary walked out of the consultation room. Her sense of disappointment and low self-esteem were palpable in the silence of the room. Thirteen-year-old Mary (I am changing the names of my patients to protect their privacy) has been struggling with vitiligo for the last two years. She has gone through phototherapy, applied topical medications and taken oral supplements to treat her vitiligo.Mary’s condition had improved but recently became active again, and she was feeling upset with the spreading patches. Her mother, who had accompanied her to the appointment, shared that Mary has been finding it difficult to adjust to secondary school life, as she is conscious about the white patches on her skin, especially on her face and hands. As a result, she has become more withdrawn and has also restricted her choice of co-curricular activity to an indoor option as she wants to avoid sun exposure.This reminded me of another patient I had seen earlier in the day – nine-year-old John, who has severe atopic dermatitis (commonly known as eczema). He has just started treatment with a medication currently approved to treat moderate to severe eczema. When John came to see me a month ago, he was feeling extremely down due to his extensive weepy, red and itchy skin. Dark eye circles revealed that his sleep had been adversely affected by the eczema. John’s parents said he had not gone to school for the last three weeks as he could not concentrate in class, did not want rude stares from classmates and unkind comments from strangers on the bus.As a dermatologist who has been seeing children and adults with skin conditions for over a decade, I often come across patients like Mary and John. Although afflicted with different skin conditions, both Mary’s and John’s mental health and well-being have suffered because of their highly visible skin disease.In an era dominated by perfectly filtered social media feeds and sometimes excessive consumption of highly engaging influencer content, children and adolescents face unprecedented pressure regarding their appearance and body image. While this environment is challenging for any young person, it creates a compounded, invisible struggle for those living with visible skin conditions. These struggles are far from rare and chances are that most readers would know a child who is quietly dealing with them.Skin conditions affect mental healthEczema, one of the most common childhood skin conditions in Singapore, currently stands as the single most frequent diagnosis at KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital’s (KKH) paediatric dermatology clinic – a stark indicator of a growing public health issue. The overall prevalence of eczema in Singapore stands at 13.1 per cent. Many patients are diagnosed in infancy or in childhood, with the prevalence in Singapore school-going children aged seven to 12 years reported at 20.8 per cent. The condition is more prevalent in children (20.6 per cent) compared with adults (11.1 per cent).Patients with eczema suffer from red, itchy, dry skin, which can affect any part of the body surface. Flare-ups can be triggered by dust, sweating, hot and humid weather, co-existing illnesses and stress. Eczema patients are three times more likely than others to develop depression and anxiety, driven by a never-ending cycle of persistent itch, poor sleep quality, limitations on daily activities and the stress of having to deal with visible skin conditions.Vitiligo is an autoimmune condition where the body produces antibodies to attack the melanocytes (pigment cells) within the skin. It falls under a group of conditions known as pigmentary disorders – conditions that affect the colour of the skin. It is less common compared with eczema, with estimates suggesting that it affects 7.4 people per 1,000 population in Singapore. Crucially, half of all vitiligo cases begin before the age of 20, striking precisely during a young person’s most formative and vulnerable years.In vitiligo, the patient develops white patches of skin, which may affect any body surface. The disease can be particularly noticeable in individuals with darker skin. Research consistently links vitiligo to severe mental health burdens. The condition can trigger psychosocial distress, depression, anxiety and social phobia, particularly among younger patients.An under-recognised burdenFor the young people suffering from such conditions, the mirror reflects not just a medical diagnosis, but a daily battleground for self-esteem. From a dermatologist’s perspective, treating the skin is only part of the management plan. In fact, visible skin conditions may be a significantly under-recognised contributor to youth mental health struggles – a matter that is already a growing national concern in Singapore. It has been reported that 30 per cent of chronic skin conditions are influenced by psychiatric disturbances. Many adolescents with visible skin disease also suffer from depression, anxiety and even suicidal tendencies.In treating patients with such skin conditions, their mental health issues also need to be addressed. At KKH, patients with both skin issues and associated mental health concerns can be seen in a combined dermatology-psychology clinic.The medical goal must shift from reactive to proactive. Treating skin conditions early and effectively is not just about aesthetics; it is also about improving the quality of life and about reducing the risk of severe mental health consequences later. Recognising how deeply a patient’s psychological state is being affected must be factored into the clinical urgency of the treatment plan.A group of global experts in vitiligo recently signed a consensus statement recognising that a patient’s psychological distress must be factored into any assessment of the severity of the disease. This highlights the importance of not just treating the skin disease, but also the underlying psychosocial factors.Breaking down the barriers to careSeveral barriers hinder patients and their families from seeking treatment early. These include myths and misinformation accessed on websites with unfiltered content.There is also the issue of social stigma, where shame and a lack of public understanding often cause families to hide or delay seeking treatment for conditions like vitiligo. We need more open and judgment-free conversations as well as public education to overcome these hurdles. Fortunately, in Singapore there is now a vitiligo patient support group as well as eczema patient support groups to help members journey safely together.Lastly, there may be a lack of awareness on the advances in medicine, which have significantly altered the treatment landscape and meaningfully shifted treatment outcomes for eczema and vitiligo in the last few years.Some of these medications are suitable even for very young patients. Dupilumab is approved to treat eczema in patients as young as six months old. Abrocitinib can be given from the age of 12 and eligible patients may be considered for government subsidies. Meanwhile, Ruxolitinib cream can be used on patients 12 years and older with generalised vitiligo. While it still requires special medical approval in Singapore for prescription, my team and I have seen promising results treating both adult and paediatric patients with it at KKH and Singapore General Hospital (SGH).Importantly, care does not stop when a child grows up. The same specialist sees patients across the pigmentary disorders clinics at KKH and at SGH, ensuring that the relationship, history, and trust built over years carry forward seamlessly into adulthood – a continuity that matters deeply for conditions that are lifelong and deeply personal.When it comes to intervention, waiting is not a neutral choice. Delaying treatment allows the condition to take a deeper, sometimes permanent toll on a child or adolescent’s confidence and psychological development. By understanding that help is available, acknowledging that these conditions are more than just skin deep, and responding to visible differences with compassion rather than judgment, we can reduce the mental burden of such visible skin conditions.Mary and John have a tough battle to face. But I am confident we can make it easier for them to lead a better life.•Emily Gan Yiping is senior consultant at the Department of Dermatology, KK Women’s and Children’s Hospital.More on this topic‘Now, I thank the universe for this’: Vitiligo patients in Singapore cope with skin disorderRare skin condition gives 9-year-old girl skin like KPop Demon Hunters character

dear you

SINGAPORE – It took a film to reopen one of Singapore’s foundational policy questions.Dear You, the Chinese blockbuster filmed largely in Teochew and centred on the emotional worlds of Chinese migrants to South-east Asia, arrived in Singapore with a peculiarity: Its general release here would be in Mandarin-dubbed form, while the original Teochew version would be confined to limited screenings.The response was immediate. Tickets to the original-language screenings sold out quickly. Film-makers spoke up. Members of the public questioned why a Teochew-language film could be screened commercially in Johor Bahru, while Singapore audiences were largely offered a dubbed version. Within days, more original-language screenings were added.On the surface, this may look like a dispute about film distribution. It is not. It is a reminder that language policy in Singapore remains deeply bound up with questions of identity, memory and belonging.What is at issue is not simply whether one film should be shown in Teochew or Mandarin. It is whether a language framework that served Singapore well in one era now needs recalibration for another.This is not an argument against bilingualism.Singapore’s bilingual policy has been one of the most consequential and successful pillars of our nation-building project. It gave us a common working language in English, enabling inter-ethnic communication and global connectedness. It also sought to anchor cultural continuity through the teaching of official mother tongues. In a young and vulnerable state, this was not merely educational policy. It was strategic statecraft.That framework has served Singapore well. But the fact that a policy was right for its time does not mean that it should remain unchanged in all its particulars. Successful policies can outlive the assumptions that first made them successful. Policies are built for historical circumstances; when those circumstances evolve, policy must also be open for renewal.The Dear You debate should be read in precisely that light.A policy that succeeded – and a context that changedSingapore’s language settlement emerged from a very specific set of post-independence imperatives.English was designated the common language of administration, commerce, science and inter-ethnic communication. Mother tongues (Mandarin, Malay and Tamil) were to preserve cultural ballast and civilisational rootedness.For the Chinese community in particular, the Speak Mandarin Campaign launched in 1979 sought to reduce the fragmentation of multiple dialects and to establish Mandarin as a common language among Chinese Singaporeans.The logic was clear and compelling for its time. A common working language was essential for social cohesion and economic competitiveness. Consolidating Chinese dialect use around Mandarin was seen as necessary to support bilingualism and to prevent a proliferation of linguistic divides.By most measures, the policy succeeded. English became the principal language of work and schooling; Mandarin became the dominant Chinese language among younger Singaporeans.But the very success of that settlement has produced a different challenge. The concern today is no longer that dialects will overwhelm English or undermine Mandarin learning. It is almost the reverse: that heritage languages and dialects may disappear from everyday life so thoroughly that what is lost is not merely vocabulary, but also cultural memory, intergenerational connection and part of the texture of Singapore’s plural past.That is why Dear You has touched a nerve. It has surfaced a question that extends beyond one film: If the bilingual policy has already achieved its core objectives, is there room to loosen the governance of the cultural domain and release it from assumptions forged under a different set of anxieties?For many, the objection to dubbing is not ideological but cultural. A language carries far more than semantic meaning. It carries rhythm, humour, silence, kinship terms, emotional registers and historical memory. A film made in Teochew about Teochew migrants is not fully the same film when dubbed into Mandarin and the plot remains unchanged. Something in the grain of the work is altered.Nor is this simply a Chinese dialect issue. The broader question is whether Singapore can now consider linguistic diversity as a resource to be stewarded rather than a problem to be managed.In a more mature Singapore, perhaps we should ask whether there is room to preserve the discipline of bilingualism while making more space for the complexity of multilingual life. The question before us is not whether bilingualism was right. It was. The question is whether a framework designed for the imperatives of the 1960s and 1970s can be reconsidered to be responsive to the complexities of the 2020s and beyond.The answer, I think, is that the foundations remain sound, but the superstructure needs renewal.What the Dear You episode tells usThe episode tells us at least four things.First, it tells us that there is real demand for original-language cultural expression, including in heritage languages that do not sit neatly within our official language architecture. The strong response to Dear You came from audiences who wanted to experience the film in the language in which it was performed and emotionally textured.Second, it tells us that younger Singaporeans are not indifferent to linguistic heritage, even if many do not speak those languages fluently. There is, among some, a genuine desire to reconnect with the languages of their parents and grandparents, whether through films, music, oral histories, community initiatives or family conversations. This desire should not be romanticised, but neither should it be dismissed. It is part of a broader search for rootedness in an evolving and maturing society.More on this topicIf the Speak Mandarin Campaign succeeded, why are we still afraid of Teochew?IMDA approves 50 additional Teochew screenings of popular Chinese movie Dear YouThird, it tells us that our current language arrangements may be too blunt in the way they treat different domains of life. The language of schooling, the language of administration, the language of artistic expression and the language of cultural memory do not all need to be governed by the same logic. A policy framework designed to ensure coherence in education should not automatically be transposed onto cinema, theatre or heritage work.Fourth, it tells us that Singapore is now mature enough to move from a defensive posture on language to a more confident one. We are no longer the uncertain state of the 1960s, balancing fragility on multiple fronts. We are a far more established society, with strong institutions, a more sophisticated arts ecosystem and a population accustomed to navigating multiple linguistic and cultural worlds.If we still believe that exposure to dialects in public cultural life threatens the foundations of bilingualism, we may be underestimating the resilience of the very policy we seek to protect.What should change – and what should notTo say that language policy should evolve is not to argue that everything must be reopened. Some fundamentals should remain.English will and should remain Singapore’s common working language. It is indispensable to our social compact and global orientation. Mother tongue education should also remain an important part of our schooling system, for the reasons that anchored them in earlier times.The question is how to move from a bilingual policy designed primarily for economic necessity and social engineering towards a broader language policy suited to a more culturally confident society.That renewal could take place in at least three ways.Separate the educational domain from the cultural domainThe most immediate lesson from Dear You is that Singapore could consider a clearer distinction between language policy in education and language policy in cultural exhibition.It is entirely reasonable for the state to preserve a structured bilingual framework in schools. It is much less clear why the same logic should continue to shape what can be shown in cinemas in original form, especially when subtitles already provide accessibility.A Teochew film screened in Teochew does not weaken the teaching of Mandarin in schools any more than a Japanese film screened in Japanese weakens the teaching of English.The most immediate lesson from Dear You is that Singapore could consider a clearer distinction between language policy in education and cultural exhibition. PHOTO: CLOVER FILMSA sensible reform would be to establish a more permissive default for the public exhibition of films in heritage languages and dialects, subject to the same classification and content rules that apply to other films.In other words, the issue should be treated primarily as one of cultural exhibition, not as an extension of school language policy. Regulators need not withdraw entirely. But the starting point should shift from restriction with exceptions to permission with safeguards.This should not apply only to imported films. It should also support local film-makers, theatre-makers and content producers who wish to work in dialects, mixed registers or other community languages.Reframe dialects and heritage languages as cultural assetsHeritage languages are part of our intangible cultural infrastructure. They are repositories of migration histories, ritual vocabularies, kinship systems, humour, oral traditions and worldviews. Their value is not reducible to whether they are efficient languages of modern administration or mass schooling. Their value lies also in what they carry across generations.If that is accepted, then policy could move beyond ad-hoc accommodation towards active stewardship. This could include support for subtitled screenings of heritage-language films; grants for oral history projects and digital archives; greater encouragement for museums, libraries and arts institutions to programme work in dialects and other community languages; and partnerships with clan associations, cultural groups and schools to document and transmit these linguistic traditions.This principle should apply across communities, not only to Chinese dialects. If we are serious about pluralism, then Malay variants, Indian languages beyond Tamil and other heritage languages should also be seen as part of Singapore’s cultural commons. A renewed language policy could be a wider reflection on how a diverse society honours the full range of its linguistic inheritances.More on this topicMandarin or dialect, there’s no need to pick sides, says Promote Mandarin CouncilChina’s surprise blockbuster Dear You is a love letter to the Nanyang generationUpdate the rationale for multilingualismFinally, Singapore could revisit how it explains language learning to the next generation.For decades, the rationale for bilingual education has been framed in instrumental terms: economic usefulness, civilisational roots and social discipline. These arguments have merit, but do not capture the wider value of multilingualism in a culturally dense and globally connected society.We would benefit from a more expansive language imagination. Languages are not only tools of utility. They are also ways of entering other worlds of meaning. They allow access to literature, memory, humour, prayer, family history and social nuance. They can deepen intergenerational relationships. They can offer a sense of history.In this sense, language has value beyond market reasons and could be a form of human and civic capability. Not every Singaporean must or can become fluent in heritage languages. But it can still be appreciated in cultural programming.From bilingual discipline to multilingual confidenceThere will be those who worry that any loosening of older restrictions risks unravelling hard-won gains. That is a valid consideration that we must take seriously. Language policy in Singapore has always been entangled with race, class and national cohesion. It is precisely because the issue is so consequential that change should be thoughtful rather than impulsive. We must not confuse continuity with wisdom, nor must we confound change with unproductive disruption. The goal might be to find a way to hold together both commonality and complexity with confidence.I believe we can do so.We can retain English as our common working language. We can continue to invest in mother tongue education. And we can also recognise that heritage languages and dialects deserve a more legitimate and visible place in our cultural life. This allows us to hold commonality and have space for the richly particular.Dear You debate: Is it time to relook rules on Chinese dialects?The Usual Place | The Straits TimesWatch onThe Dear You episode is a valuable one. It has given us an opportunity to ask what it means, at this stage of our national journey, to hear ourselves more fully. Not only in the official languages that built our institutions, but also in the inherited languages that carry memory, intimacy and the traces of journeys that made Singapore what it is.Bilingualism was one of Singapore’s great acts of nation-building. The task now is not to abandon it, but to build on it, by moving from bilingual discipline to multilingual confidence.•Lily Kong is president of Singapore Management University and a social and cultural geographer whose work has examined topics including national identity, cultural heritage and higher education. More on this topicMDDI open to more Teochew screenings of Dear You; more flexible approach planned for dialect filmsIs there a place for Chinese dialects in film and TV today? Media veterans weigh in