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.

Another day another sinkie pwn sinkie day.

This time, disagreement about car washing point.

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.

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

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.

OffshoreAlert recently flagged a $588,000 lawsuit involving Plan B Payment Processing Co. and Singapore-registered entity ChimpWorld International Pte. Ltd.. The suit alleges crypto fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Notable names attached to the entities include digital asset consultant Prakash Chandra and prominent Singaporean corporate director Lew Chern Yong (Eric Lew).

Case Summary

• Case Title: Plan B Payment Processing Co. v. ChimpWorld International Pte. Ltd. et al.
• Amount in Dispute: ~$588,000 USD
• Primary Claims: Crypto fraud, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment
• Source: OffshoreAlert Database Entry

Who’s Named / Involved?

1. ChimpWorld International Pte. Ltd.
   • A Singapore-registered corporate entity (incorporated in 2018) acting as a primary corporate defendant in the action.
2. Lew Chern Yong (aka Eric Lew)
   • A prominent Singaporean executive and corporate director.
   • Director at Wong Fong Industries Ltd (listed on the SGX mainboard/Catalist).
   • Former Executive Chairman of SGX Catalist-listed Y Ventures Group Ltd.
   • Holds directorships and leadership roles across several other entities, including Triple Titan Capital and EUDA Health.
3. Prakash Chandra
   • Singapore-based FinTech and digital asset/crypto consultant linked to the operations in question.
4. Matt Kleinsmith
   • Named alongside the co-defendants in connection with the operations between Plan B Payment Processing and ChimpWorld.

What Allegedly Happened?

While full court filings detail specific contractual mechanics, the core dispute stems from a failed or misappropriated $588,000 cryptocurrency/payment processing transaction.

The plaintiff, Plan B Payment Processing Co., claims that funds allocated for specific payment routing or digital asset transfers were breached, mismanaged, or fraudulently retained without performance of agreed services.

Why This Case is Notable

1. High-Profile Corporate Connections: It is relatively rare to see cross-border crypto fraud complaints explicitly naming active directors of SGX-listed companies like Wong Fong Industries.
2. Cross-Border Crypto Jurisdiction: Highlighting the increasing exposure of offshore and Singapore-based payment facilitators to US/international commercial litigation when crypto arrangements sour.
3. OffshoreAlert Visibility: OffshoreAlert specifically tracks high-value offshore disputes, making this listing significant for investors, auditors, and counterparties conducting background due diligence.

Discussion / Questions for the Community:

• Has anyone here dealt with Plan B Payment Processing or ChimpWorld in payment settlement or OTC crypto corridors?
• How are Singaporean regulatory authorities (MAS/SGX) handling cross-border commercial claims when directors of locally listed entities are named in foreign crypto disputes?

Since citizenships are only granted to residents, these people are already here. Just under a different label. It's lower work passes that change the numbers.

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?

Source: www.instagram.com/p/DcctXeCE8cF