More than a Feeling: Understanding Public Trust

ETHOS Issue 28, Apr 2025

The Global Decline in Public Trust

Trust is the lifeblood of any institution. But it is hard to earn and easy to lose.

Globally, the outlook for trust in public institutions has been bleak. The Edelman Trust Barometer found in 2023 that only 50% of survey respondents worldwide reported trusting their government.¹ In a separate global survey, 45% polled felt governments were "untrustworthy", ranking among the lowest trusted sectors studied.²

Singapore bucks this global trend: trust in government has remained high, at 77% in 2024. It even increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (from 70% in 2019³ to 76% in 2022⁴). This finding differs from other countries, where the initial rise in public trust eventually reverted to lower pre-pandemic levels.⁵

Globally, there is a 'trust gap'⁶ between the haves and have-nots: those in the lowest income quartile are less likely to trust institutions compared to the top. This is also the case in Singapore: the average trust in institutions⁷ by low-income earners was 18 percentage points lower than high-income earners (55% vs 73%) in 2023, putting Singapore in seventh place in terms of the trust gap among 27 countries surveyed.

What are the key shifts affecting public trust in Singapore, what components make up this trust, and how can governments build meaningful trust with citizens?

Securing Trust in Institutions

Citizens may have different ideas of what constitutes 'government', which can impact trust building. They may think of government as the public service and institutions such as the courts, or solely comprising political actors, e.g., politicians and political parties. The actions of one part of government may inadvertently affect perceptions of another.⁸

Securing institutional trust is critical for the public service. Strong institutional trust allows governments to secure process-based trust from citizens. Process-based trust means citizens can accept an outcome—even if it is not their desired outcome—because they believe the underlying process was fair and justly executed. This form of trust can forge stronger government-citizen relationships and mitigate the negative impact of unpopular decisions or policies.

Crucially, leaders representing institutions, as well as the individuals implementing institutional processes, must demonstrate respect for the process and its rules. When leaders and officials disparage systems, trust in systems erodes even if there are checks and proper processes in place.

Building Trust in a Digital Era

The rise of social media has impacted the trust dynamics between citizens and institutions. Social media can create 'echo chambers' that fuel social and public mistrust. Individuals increasingly access content and closed groups that reflect their own beliefs and biases. Recommendation engines then amplify individuals' choices by sending users down rabbit holes toward even more extreme ideas. This is how conspiracy theories and anti-vaccination beliefs spread amongst members of wellness groups during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁹ Disinformation that rises within online communities can be harder to stamp out as group members grow more insular in their information consumption habits.

Yet, social media also offers a platform to humanise public communications, foster authenticity and enable political leaders to speak directly to a viewer. Public officers must learn to use social media for positive engagement while mitigating the negative impact. This includes creating content that is short, snappy, and easily understood to catch the public's attention. Additionally, they must also be able to promptly detect and dispel disinformation that could sow distrust.¹⁰

Maintaining Trust in Divisive Times

Polarising forces in society can reduce trust. If citizens perceive that governments are ignoring or mismanaging fault lines in society, mistrust can breed. Below are some key trends, not unique to Singapore, that could contribute to societal divides and affect public trust:

• Income and wealth inequality can exacerbate tensions and fissions. Less well-off groups may feel disenfranchised by policies, perceive that the system is rigged against them, and feel that those in power are not working in their best interests. There is the risk of economic 'enclaves', where there is little understanding between different socio-economic groups. These forces can make it harder to build trust and corral a nation towards common goals.
• Identity politics can be powerfully divisive, and make it challenging for the government to effectively engage with and represent the interests of all citizens. For example, race and religion, as well as issues of gender and sexual orientation, are complex issues inherently tied to an individual's self-worth, sense of belonging, and lived experience. It can thus be difficult for individuals with strongly held views to compromise or cede space. Nevertheless, it is important for a society to continue having such difficult but salient conversations, rather than ignore or downplay their significance.
• Generational differences can impact how trust in government is built. In Singapore, the government enjoys large reserves of trust with an older generation of citizens who had experienced the radical post-Independence transformation of Singapore from a Third World country to First. However, younger generations, with different lived experiences, have yet to build up the same trust in Government. Younger Singaporeans may also place a higher value on different aspects of governance, such as robust processes, including checks and balances within the system, or fair and equitable treatment of all political parties. This shift in priorities means the government may have to adapt their approach to win trust among the younger generation.

Given Singapore's changing demographics, developing inclusive policies that foster an 'all of us matter' mentality will be vital. Doing this may well involve creating and maintaining physical and online communal spaces for people to meet and foster mutual understanding over time.

Framing policies in an inclusive manner is also essential. Presenting policies as mutually beneficial for the target group and the broader community, rather than exclusively benefiting a specific group, can garner greater support.¹¹

Managing Tensions between Components of Trust

Regardless of its competence and fairness, a government may still lose public trust if seen as uncaring.¹⁹ All three components of trust—competence, integrity, and care—are necessary. The challenge for government is when these key components come into tension with one another.

The ideal 'care' for citizens is service that is personalised and designed around the individual rather than an aggregation of individuals. However, governments must contend with resource constraints. Prioritising competence in service may mean delivering outcomes at scale, which may lead certain citizen groups to feel less cared for or included.

Another example is data privacy—where transparency may be at odds with competence. Governments have access to troves of citizen information and are entrusted to handle such information sensitively. However, a crisis or emergency may throw up dilemmas: in a pandemic, for example, how much private information should be disclosed to provide assurance and awareness, and how much should be withheld to protect individual citizens?

To balance these different trust-related priorities, governments must set clear principles and protocols for appropriate data disclosure, as well as clear processes and practices that ensure data security.

Looking Ahead

Singapore's government has built a strong reputation for its ability to competently deliver policy, and for maintaining a robust anti-graft and high-integrity system. As Singapore progresses, the focus may shift towards the 'care' aspect of trust. Core to this is a reflection on whether the public service's ethos of serving with heart has translated into a public perception that the government cares for its citizens and their interests.

Leaders should assess the public perception of their agency and the messages it conveys to the public. Agencies can cultivate a more open and empathetic 'institutional body language'²⁰ through their communications, culture, and leadership practices.

Going forward, the public sector will have to establish and maintain trust within an intricate and unpredictable governance context. Proactive efforts to demonstrate competence, care, and integrity across various government functions, such as policymaking, communications, enforcement, services, and engagement, will be essential for upholding public trust amid evolving social dynamics.