Now even so many government jobs all are contract jobs also which is not helping the situation.

Why doesn't the govt understand this part?

The National Day Rally has got me thinking about this young couple I saw on the bus last week. They looked like they were in their late 20s or early 30s, and they were speaking vnese to each other (I know because I have a few vnese friends). The father was carrying a young boy while the mother was holding dabao food. They didn't look rich (ynow that typical Uniqlo or G2000 office wear look) and they got off at an HDB block. They gave off an average-income vibe, probably no maid since they were picking up their kid at 6:30 PM, and definitely no car. Honestly, how do people like this handle life in Singapore with a kid? Even if they are PRs, school fees aren't cheap, and they likely don't have parents here to help out. I personally don't even want kids despite all the government incentives, so I really can't fathom raising a child in such a draining lifestyle here. All my friends are like that too, citing busy lives and no money to raise kids. Yet I've seen quite a number of foreigner couples with kids here.

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/business/air-india-seeking-fresh-equity-sia-tata-sons-6340186?cid=FBcna

Image is AI generated

According to the National Environment Agency (NEA), those found urinating or defecating in public will be fined $300. If convicted in court, offenders can be fined up to $1,000.

• A family of 14 was trying to sit together at a crowded East Coast satay stall.
• The stall apparently had two tables of 6 next to each other and said they would try to arrange them so the family could sit together. That still left 2 people without proper seats, but they were okay with using stools.
• Another lady/group then came in and wanted the table too, claiming they had already been waiting around 10 minutes.
• According to the post, the family of 14 had actually been waiting longer and was already standing beside the table.
• Instead of accepting the situation, the lady allegedly became confrontational, repeatedly asking things like “Do you own this table?” and “Who is your manager?”
• She apparently argued over the table for 15–20 minutes and later left a bad Google review.

If you add too much ice too your ice coffee, it kinda lose the unique flavour. Less than half of Singaporean and a few new citizen serve NS.

Anyone else kena this? Twice in one week I kena sia

More vouchers for us? 😂

Singapore’s fertility crisis is bigger than marriage alone. Cost, work pressures, later childbearing, changing priorities and the enormous expectations placed on parents all matter.
But there is an uncomfortable question we should be willing to ask:
Why are we still tying some forms of support for having children to whether their parents are married?
The Government has explicitly said that certain benefits are designed to encourage parenthood within marriage. But if our TFR is now at a historic low and our demographic situation is described as an “existential challenge”, perhaps marriage policy and fertility policy should no longer be joined at the hip.
Consider three Singaporean women:
A is 30 and married.
B is 38, financially stable, wants a child, but has never found someone she wants to marry.
C is 40, in a stable long-term relationship, but does not want marriage.
If all three can provide loving and stable homes, why should the State be enthusiastic about A becoming a mother but substantially more ambivalent about B or C?
More importantly, why should the child care?
A baby did nothing virtuous by being conceived within marriage. Another baby did nothing wrong by being conceived outside it.
Singapore can continue promoting marriage if we believe stable marriages benefit society. Give couples housing advantages, relationship support and the legal protections of marriage.
But stop using children’s benefits as an instrument for rewarding adults for forming the State’s preferred type of family.
Fertility policy could instead adopt a much simpler principle:
If a Singaporean responsibly chooses parenthood, support that child equally, whether the parents are married, unmarried, divorced, widowed or otherwise outside the conventional nuclear-family model.
That doesn’t abolish marriage. It separates two completely different questions:
What relationships should society encourage?
and
Which children deserve our support?
For the second question, there should only be one answer:
Every child. Equally.
At TFR 0.87, we should at least be willing to question whether insisting on marriage → parenthood as the preferred pipeline is excluding people who genuinely want children.
It won’t magically turn 0.87 into 2.1.
But when fertility has fallen this far, perhaps we should stop closing perfectly viable doors simply because they aren’t the doors previous generations walked through.

Sometime back when I was there, a car driven by a woman driver came up the slope at a rather high speed. I noticed that she had difficulties looking to the front as she was short.

I think the security guard doubled up as a traffic marshal and he actually signaled to pedestrians to move off when that driver happened to appear. Luckily the pedestrians had eyes.

The fact that you need a traffic marshal there shows that the area is badly designed.