Spending like you’re untouchable is a real psychological pattern that intensifies when powerful people around us fall apart. Whether it’s watching a senior colleague get retrenched, seeing a formerly wealthy relative struggle financially, or scrolling through news of corporate scandals, these moments trigger an unexpected response: spending more to prove personal invincibility. This isn’t just about keeping up appearances or retail therapy—it’s a deeper psychological defence mechanism that affects how many Singaporeans and Malaysians handle their money during uncertain times.
The pattern shows up in concrete ways. After hearing about a friend’s investment losses, someone might splurge on a weekend staycation at Sentosa or book a spontaneous trip to Langkawi. When reading about retrenchments at major MNCs in Raffles Place or KL’s Golden Triangle, another person might finally purchase that designer handbag they’d been eyeing. The logic feels sound in the moment: “I’m different. I’m more careful. This won’t happen to me.”
Why Watching Others Fall Makes Us Spend More
The psychological mechanism behind spending like you’re untouchable stems from what behavioural experts call defensive optimism. When witnessing someone else’s financial disaster, the brain processes this as a threat to one’s own sense of security. Rather than tightening the purse strings—the logical response—many people do the opposite.
This reaction serves a specific purpose: spending becomes proof of difference. The subconscious reasoning goes like this: “If I can afford this RM800 dinner at MICHELIN-starred restaurant, I must be doing better than them. If I can buy this new iPhone 15 Pro Max outright, clearly I’m financially stable.” Each purchase becomes evidence that one is exempt from the misfortune affecting others.
In Singapore and Malaysia’s achievement-oriented cultures, this behaviour intensifies. There’s immense social pressure to demonstrate success, especially among the sandwiched generation caring for both children and ageing parents. When a peer experiences financial difficulty, it triggers existential anxiety about one’s own position on the socioeconomic ladder.
The Social Media Amplification Effect
Instagram and Facebook compound this psychological pattern. Seeing carefully curated success stories whilst simultaneously hearing whispers of others’ struggles creates cognitive dissonance. The response? Spending to create one’s own proof of prosperity. That $150 brunch at PS.Cafe or RM300 afternoon tea at The Majestic isn’t just food—it’s a statement, a photograph, a declaration of being untouchable.
How Spending Like You’re Untouchable Manifests in Daily Life
This spending pattern doesn’t always look dramatic. Sometimes it’s subtle, appearing in small but frequent decisions that add up significantly over time.
Many professionals notice themselves ordering Grab Premium instead of GrabCar after hearing about a colleague’s demotion. Others find themselves upgrading from kopitiam meals to cafes more often following news of a friend’s business closure. The pattern might show up as subscribing to multiple streaming services when a single one would suffice, or insisting on branded groceries at Cold Storage when NTUC FairPrice alternatives exist.
The workplace provides particularly fertile ground for this behaviour. When redundancies happen in one department, survivors often increase discretionary spending. Research shows this isn’t about celebrating survival—it’s about psychologically distancing oneself from those who were let go. That distance feels safer when marked by visible consumption differences.
The Property and Car Trap
In Singapore and Malaysia, this psychology scales up to major purchases. Watching peers struggle with mortgage payments might paradoxically push someone toward buying a larger BTO flat or upgrading from a resale HDB to a condo. Hearing about a relative’s car repossession could trigger the decision to finally purchase that continental car instead of sticking with a Japanese model.
The reasoning always sounds rational: “I’ve done my sums. I can afford it. I’m not like them—I’m more disciplined.” But the timing reveals the truth. These decisions often coincide with witnessing others’ difficulties, not with actual improvements in personal financial circumstances.
The Real Cost of Proving You’re Different
Spending like you’re untouchable carries consequences beyond the immediate financial impact. The behaviour creates a dangerous feedback loop that can actually increase vulnerability rather than reduce it.
First, it depletes emergency funds. Those who spend to prove their financial stability often sacrifice the very cushion that would actually protect them during difficulties. A Singaporean earning $6,000 monthly might feel untouchable whilst maintaining only $5,000 in savings because they’re spending the rest on lifestyle maintenance. Meanwhile, they’re one medical emergency or retrenchment away from the exact situation they’re trying to distance themselves from.
Second, it normalises living at the edge of one’s means. When spending becomes a psychological tool rather than a reflection of genuine affordability, people lose touch with their actual financial position. That RM8,000 monthly income feels differently when RM7,500 goes toward proving you’re doing well.
The Shame Spiral
Perhaps most damaging is the shame spiral this behaviour creates. When financial difficulty eventually arrives—and statistics show it does for most people at some point—those who’ve spent years proving their difference face compounded embarrassment. They’ve built an identity around being untouchable, making it harder to seek help, adjust spending, or admit vulnerability when needed.
Breaking the Pattern: From Untouchable to Actually Secure
Recognising spending like you’re untouchable is the first step toward changing it. The pattern loses power once brought into conscious awareness.
Start by noticing timing. When does the urge to spend intensify? If it correlates with hearing bad news about others’ finances, that’s the pattern revealing itself. A simple exercise: keep a spending journal for one month, noting not just what was purchased but what was happening in the news or social circle at the time. The patterns often become obvious.
Second, separate actual security from performed security. Real financial stability comes from emergency funds equivalent to six months of expenses, manageable debt levels, and sustainable spending patterns. It doesn’t come from visible consumption. A person with RM50,000 in savings wearing Uniqlo is objectively more secure than someone with RM5,000 in savings wearing Charles & Keith.
Building Genuine Financial Confidence
Replace the need to prove difference with building actual difference. Channel the money that would go toward defensive spending into emergency funds, insurance coverage, or skill development. These create real protection rather than the illusion of it.
When the urge to spend after witnessing someone’s struggle arises, pause and name it: “I’m feeling anxious about my own security, and I want to spend to feel different from them.” This simple acknowledgment often diffuses the compulsion.
The Lessons: Practical Steps Forward
The path away from spending like you’re untouchable involves several concrete principles that readers can implement immediately.
Principle One: Audit for Pattern Recognition. Review the past three months of bank statements. Mark purchases that happened within 48 hours of hearing difficult financial news about someone else. Calculate the total. This number represents the cost of psychological defence rather than genuine need or even genuine want.
Principle Two: Redirect the Impulse. When the urge to spend defensively arises, transfer that exact amount to a separate savings account labelled “Actual Security Fund.” This satisfies the need to take action whilst building real protection. After three months, compare the balance to what would have been spent. The difference becomes motivating.
Principle Three: Redefine Success Metrics. In Singapore and Malaysia’s competitive cultures, visible consumption often stands in for success. Consciously develop internal metrics instead: emergency fund milestones, debt reduction achievements, or investment knowledge gained. Share these victories with trusted friends who’ll appreciate them, creating positive social reinforcement for actual security rather than performed security.
Principle Four: Practice Compassionate Realism. Everyone faces financial difficulty eventually. Job losses, medical bills, family emergencies, economic downturns—these affect people regardless of intelligence, discipline, or planning. Accepting this reality paradoxically reduces the anxiety that drives defensive spending. When security comes from preparation rather than from believing “it won’t happen to me,” there’s less need to prove difference through spending.
Principle Five: Find Alternative Proof. If the psychological need for reassurance persists, create healthier proof of stability. Review insurance coverage, calculate net worth quarterly, or schedule annual financial health check-ups. These provide genuine reassurance without the cost of defensive spending.
Moving from Illusion to Reality
Spending like you’re untouchable ultimately reveals a profound human vulnerability: the fear of being exactly like those who struggle. But here’s the paradox—the spending meant to prove difference actually creates similarity. It depletes resources, reduces genuine security, and increases vulnerability to the very outcomes being avoided.
True financial confidence doesn’t require proof through spending. It exists quietly in emergency funds, manageable commitments, and the knowledge that whatever happens, there’s a cushion to handle it. That confidence doesn’t need to be photographed, posted, or proven. It simply is.
For Singaporeans and Malaysians navigating expensive cities, family obligations, and social expectations, this shift from performed security to actual security might be one of the most valuable financial decisions possible. The money saved from not proving invincibility becomes the foundation for genuine resilience. And that resilience doesn’t just look different—it fundamentally is different.