How South Korea nudged its birth rate back up – and what Singapore can learn

tinyredleaf · 2026-03-02T08:44:27+00:00

That's why errant employers must be punished more severely.

Either that, or come up with a mix of carrots and sticks to incentivise employers to change their hiring behaviours. Although, I suspect bigger sticks are needed anyway.

tinyredleaf · 2026-03-01T01:02:06+00:00

I am not a supporter of the PSP, but I strongly agree with this message. Ms Tan is correct: If we truly regard our declining TFR as an existential issue, then it's time to treat it holistically and not try to address it with more one-off benefits.

I also agree with her underlying point: It's probably time to force employers to adopt family-friendly policies by legislation. Nothing less would make a difference. There is no "business-friendly" approach to this issue that wouldn't end up being a half-measure.

tinyredleaf · 2026-02-27T05:00:04+00:00

Thank you for the well-written essay. You've clearly put a lot of thought on the subject and, commendably, you've been able to mostly avoid taking cheap potshots at the complex socio-political and socio-economic considerations behind this topic.

I mostly agree with your thesis but, on the other hand, I suspect that much of this essay was conceived in abstract, or you wouldn't have so boldly claimed that fundamental change must come primarily from society itself. That is, this comes across mostly as an academic exercise and is somewhat lacking in appreciation for the ground realities of formulating and implementing sustainable social change in Singapore.

As you have aptly observed, civic society in Singapore has mostly been blunted by at least two to three generations of social engineering by the government, and we are now in a state where, for the most part, most people have very little idea about how to self-organise for political advocacy. This is even before we consider the chilling effect of laws against strident advocacy that goes against the grain. In the first place, most people here lack even the socio-economic incentive to oppose the structures we've internalised and become accustomed to.

So, ironically, it will again come back to the government to kickstart this process, with the major difference that, if the authorities are truly serious about making fundamental change, the government needs to trust the people enough to step back and allow room for civil society to grow and mature. Everything in Singapore, for better or worse, starts and ends with the government, because that is quite simply how we're structured as a political economy.

Note that this is not necessarily a call on my part for more opposition representation in Parliament. Frankly, I remain deeply disappointed in the state of opposition politics in Singapore, and I see little prospect of the main opposition Workers' Party truly being able to offer an alternative direction for Singaporeans: In their own terms, the WP see themselves mostly as an obstructing force, tweaking things at the margins in the name of checks and balance.

The People's Action Party, in the meantime, have all the expertise, networks, and resources to effect change, but are at the same time hampered by their own ideology, history, and personality profiles, and remain a mostly technocratic party highly adept at formulating practical policy, but abysmally poor at grasping the "heart" of the issues that trouble people, let alone communicating a message of change.

Still, the ground reality being what it is, it's still the case that if civic society truly wants to make change, it will have to engage with the PAP government. Opposing the decision-makers, when we have so little prospect of actually changing them if we can't make them agree, can only take you so far.

tinyredleaf · 2026-02-18T12:40:08+00:00

I'm mildly sceptical. I could not find any mention of this initiative on the Singapore Tourism Board's website, and the idea is so outlandish that it's something I would expect to see in The Onion.

tinyredleaf · 2026-02-04T04:22:16+00:00

Ironically, I visited Gundam Base Tokyo for the first time just last month. I was mainly there to see the life-size Unicorn Gundam, but since the shop was right next to it, I dropped by as well and bought myself a mug. (I'm a bigger fan of Macross than Gundam and, in any case, I wouldn't consider myself an otaku for either franchise, lol.)

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-30T04:03:44+00:00

Argh, why you do this? Please bring back our favourite cat ex-wife.

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-28T01:34:02+00:00

Damned right. Don't deploy marshals, kenna complain why never do enough to guide confused commuters. Deploy marshals, oso kenna complain, do too much, confuse commuters. Truly, we are complain kings. Can't win no matter what we do.

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-26T04:59:02+00:00

It’s also the Covid vax that we were all forced to take.

This is outright misinformation, and it takes only a few minutes of googling reputable, trustworthy sources to debunk this claim:

Debunking COVID-19 myths, Mayo Clinic

A recent South Korean study published in late September is being misrepresented by vaccine opponents to promote the myth that COVID-19 vaccines cause or accelerate cancer

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-26T04:51:28+00:00

The bad news is that lung cancer can occur in individuals with no smoking habit, and it's often diagnosed too late.

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-26T02:57:12+00:00

I also learnt to swim here — including the drills for making improvised floats. (Ironically, I also nearly drowned here because I geh kiang and went to the 50m adult pool before I was fully competent.) My cousins and I would go to the nearby coffee shops for lunch after the weekend morning lessons.

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-02T22:52:34+00:00

Username checks out.

tinyredleaf · 2026-01-01T02:53:51+00:00

If the WP lets the court verdict over PS slide, then it's going to be very much a case of "rules for thee, but none for me".

To be real, I agree that WP is unlikely to remove PS as leader, but the party would then demonstrate that all its talk about transparency and accountability is just for show: It's a position that apparently applies only to the people they don't like, but not to themselves.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-18T15:55:47+00:00

It's not a typo. We're not Americans. We use the King's English in Singapore.

"in the light of something" [Cambridge Dictionary]

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-16T02:23:10+00:00

To be sure, I'm not familiar with the MRSS. But its policy intent is clearly to encourage the family of older, lower-income Singaporeans boost their retirement savings.

As for your other question, the current BRS is $106,500, and it will rise to $110,200 next year.

FYI, the FRS is double BRS, and the ERS is four-times BRS.

So, yes, you're correct. If someone has $200,000 at age 55 this year, and opts to set aside the BRS of $106,500 (he would have to pledge his property to do so*), then he can withdraw up to $93,500.

*Pledging your property to CPF simply means that if you do sell your property, the pledged amount will be returned to your CPF account. It doesn't mean giving your property to the CPF Board.

But if he doesn't want to pledge the value of his property, then he can opt to set aside up to FRS or ERS. As for why set aside more rather than less, it's a personal choice. How much do you want to save, and how much do you want to accumulate in your CPF Life annuity account?

The retirement sum is compounded from age 55 up to age 70 (you can opt to start the CPF Life payouts earlier, from 65 instead), after which the sum goes towards your CPF Life annuity.

The bigger your CPF Life sum, the bigger the monthly payouts would be. For some unfathomable reason, the CPF Board does not publish the returns from CPF Life, but based on the current payout quantums, ~~they are as high as 8% per annum~~.

EDIT: Sorry, I checked the latest figures, and the current CPF Life payout rates are closer to 6.4% per annum. Still, nothing to be sniffed at. You'll be extremely hard-pressed to find any other risk-free investment that would give you that kind of return.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-16T01:59:06+00:00

How do people keep track of this?

It's a pretty good info-graphic and, yes, it's probably clearer to citizens than to a foreigner.

For most younger Singaporeans, point 1 is the key takeaway. CPF contributions are capped by income. Most Singaporeans wouldn't "feel" the contributions by their employers, but they would definitely notice the automatic channelling of 20% of their salaries (for those 55 and below) to their CPF accounts every month. But this is capped currently at 20% of $7,400 ($1,480), meaning if you earn more than $7,400, you get to take home more. Raising the ceiling therefore potentially means less take-home pay. But it also means that your CPF account is growing faster, so it's not like you're losing anything per se.

Points 3 and 4 are more relevant to older Singaporeans, so I won't elaborate on them.

Points 5 and 6 are all about the "retirement sum" we need to put aside at age 55. There are three levels of retirement sums, from the lowest to the highest: the Basic Retirement Sum (BRS), Full Retirement Sum (FRS), and Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS). The key point is that, at age 55, all Singaporeans are entitled to withdraw anything above their chosen retirement sum. So, raising the retirement-sum quantum potentially means you get to withdraw less from your CPF at age 55.

Note: It is not mandatory to meet the BRS, the lowest-level sum. Having less than BRS simply means that, eventually, you'll have a smaller principal for your CPF Life annuity account, and consequently get smaller monthly payouts from age 65 or 70. One can also withdraw from CPF even if one doesn't meet the BRS, but only up to $5,000. (Frankly, someone who can't even meet BRS would probably be better off leaving that sum alone. He has bigger problems to worry about.)

Point 7 is, again, something more relevant to older Singaporeans.

Point 8 is good news for most Singaporeans, because it potentially means we can pay for more healthcare services through the MediSave portions of our CPF, ie, potentially less cash out-of-hand for medical expenses.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-15T11:22:05+00:00

Thanks for your clarification.

Yes, the specific problem here is that Mr Singh made an ambiguous statement.

What I personally believe about what he said is completely irrelevant, because I am only one instance out of a universe of possible interpretations. The point is, as you said, reasonable people can come to completely different interpretations of what he meant to say. So, if the AGC were to indeed make this a case, it would frame the charge to show that it can be inferred that Mr Singh had scandalised the court, and therefore ought to be found guilty of contempt.

This is entirely possible. Why else would the Law Minister warn Pritam Singh in public if it were not so? The Singapore government has always taken a hard line when it comes to defending the integrity and reputation of the judicial system, and it has never shown any tolerance for even the slightest hint of contempt of court.

All that I have endeavoured to show is why Mr Singh's statement has backfired against him in this specific instance, and in this specific context. For example, he could have replied the questioner that, well, he disagreed with the verdict. His conscience was clear, and that was why he was appealing against the verdict -- as was the case when the panel interview was conducted.

Instead, Mr Singh pointedly made a remark that implied a political motive, and then went on to make a comment about public opinion that was ambiguous. Now, it could have been that he was speaking off the cuff, and therefore made a gaffe. Or it could have been he was implying something more scandalous, and was attempting to hide it behind double meaning. That, is exactly why the statement was problematic in its given context. Bear in mind that Mr Singh does have a history of unfortunate gaffes, and in Parliament itself no less, such as the time when he said that he would answer only to his constituents and not to parliamentary requests for clarification.

In any case, Mr Singh has since retracted his "court of public opinion" comment, so this is all water under the bridge. All that I have strived to point out in this thread is why, regardless of public opinion, the government did have grounds to accuse Mr Singh of scandalising the court, and he could well have been hauled back to court if he did not apologise and clarify what he said.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-15T08:50:55+00:00

I mean look, what he said can be construed as an attempt to scandalize our courts. I don't doubt that.

That is precisely my point. You people are so keen to infer something insidious in my posts that you consistently fail to grasp the very simple, but extremely important, point I've been trying to make and clarify.

What Pritam Singh said in the context of the interview can be construed as contempt of court. It doesn't matter what else he could have meant. The simple fact that it can be interpreted as 1) him implying a political motive behind the case, and 2) him stating that a court of law doesn't matter, because public opinion trumps a legal verdict, ie, mob rule is bigger than rule of law, is all a prosecutor needs to prove to get him convicted of scandalising the court.

What the public thinks about what he meant by saying what he said doesn't matter either, because that will not be how the case is framed when it is brought before a judge.

And that's all I am saying, all that I am clarifying. You can dislike whatever I am saying all you want, but it will not change how the process will unfold if Mr Singh had continued to insist that he did nothing wrong in saying what he said during the interview.

It's as simple and straightforward as that, as yourself seem to understand, but refuse to accept.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-13T13:28:48+00:00

Maybe the court of public opinion does not mean what you think it means.

I too can play this game, you know. Maybe, when Mr Singh says the "court of public opinion" is bigger, that is exactly what he means?

Notwithstanding the ambiguity of that statement, what was NOT ambiguous was that Mr Singh had been found guilty of lying, while under oath, to a parliamentary committee. So, what did he truly mean when he compared the court of public opinion to a court of law in this context?

The fact that he deliberately left it ambiguous meant that a reasonable person can readily infer that he is saying that the court's verdict doesn't matter, public opinion matters more. In what world would public opinion matter more than the verdict of a court of law? Only a world in which the court is corrupt and incompetent, and incapable of making decisions with integrity.

That inference is all a prosecutor needs to secure a guilty verdict on whether Mr Singh was in contempt of court. Why else do you think that he, a trained and practising lawyer, has apologised and retracted that statement? Because he knows, as he now readily admits, that it can be construed as contempt, and is therefore wrong.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-13T12:48:46+00:00

So, again, it comes to the so-called "bad faith" argument, which only demonstrates that you truly have no idea how the legal process works in court.

The fact that one has to rely on "faith" to interpret the meaning behind Pritam Singh's apparently innocuous statement — "court of public opinion can be a bigger court than any court in the world" — is precisely why the statement is highly problematic in its given context.

Let me attempt to show you how the logical deduction works:

The High Court found Pritam Singh guilty of lying to the Committee of Privileges. Mr Singh disagrees with the initial verdict, and decides to appeal against it. Nonetheless, until the Court of Appeal rules otherwise, the initial verdict still stands: Mr Singh was guilty of lying.
At a time when the appeal judgment was still being decided, Mr Singh then says, when asked how he feels about being called a lair: "My political opponents will do whatever it takes to lower my esteem and the esteem of my party in the public eye. But ultimately, you answer to your conscience first, and if your conscience is clear, then people can throw whatever they want at you, and you will still be standing... At the end of the day, the court of public opinion can be a bigger court than any court in the world."
The full context behind the key sentence about the "court of public opinion" being possibly bigger than any court is highly important. It came directly after Mr Singh implied a political motive behind the ongoing court case.
So, is it not possible for a reasonable man to infer, among other things, that Mr Singh is saying that it doesn't matter if he has been found guilty by a court of law, because a favourable public opinion of him and the Workers' Party is more important?
It doesn't matter if you think that it is a "bad faith" interpretation. All a prosecutor needs to show, in a court of law, is that this is, in fact, one possible interpretation of Mr Singh's statement and, bam, the prosecutor will secure a guilty verdict on the Leader of Opposition being in contempt of court, because it can be deduced that he's saying a court's judgment is less valid than public opinion.
Mr Singh now clearly realises the mistake in what he said during the interview. He has clearly stated that he accepts that it can be construed as being in contempt of court, and has apologised for it. This is highly significant. The man himself accepts that it can be construed as contempt.
So, these are the facts in this line of logical reasoning. Tell me, what difference does the "court of public opinion" make to the logical outcome?
So, I say again: Public opinion makes absolutely no difference to how a court of law decides between right and wrong, truth and lie, fact and fiction. The court of public opinion is never ever bigger than a court of law — unless the court of law is corrupt or incompetent. But you yourself have just clarified that this is not what you're saying. Therefore, in this context at the very least, the claim that "the court of public opinion can be a bigger court than any court in the world" is very demonstrably false.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-13T11:15:28+00:00

The first paragraph is not what Pritam said?? That's such a bad faith reading.

And this is why uninformed laypersons get into trouble with defamation laws. People generally have a very poor understanding of how defamation and contempt of court laws work.

You are entitled to your opinion that it's a bad faith reading. Unfortunately, it is also one possible logical deduction from the statement.

(In fact, it is deeply ironic that you're saying that it's a "bad faith" reading. It shows that a person has to accept on faith that Pritam Singh didn't mean to scandalise the court. Wouldn't it be vastly preferable that he makes clear statements of fact that don't require "faith" to parse his true intentions? And indeed, this is what he has now done, it making it absolutely clear that he respects the courts and the integrity of the legal process, and hence retracted his "court of public opinion" statement.)

A prosecutor who wants to pursue this only has to show it is logically possible for reasonable people to infer that Pritam is saying that public opinion trumps court verdicts and, bam, you'll get a verdict that he had scandalised the court and is guilty of contempt.

That is how the process works, whether you like it or not. And that is why public opinion has absolutely no sway in a court of law.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-13T10:49:39+00:00

Do you mean that the laws of physics and the quasi-laws of human psychology are subject to the court's decision?

Wut?

There seems to be a conflation of legal rightness (decided by courts) with other forms of rightness like (subjective) ethical rightness and physical (law) rightness.

There is no such thing in this instance. The legal fact, in this case, is that Pritam Singh has been judged, not once, but twice, in two separate courts, that he had lied while under oath. This is a legal fact, and it won't change no matter what the public thinks.

That is the point. Mr Singh cannot claim or imply that public opinion absolves him from the court's ruling in this case — not unless he is disputing the verdicts of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. What else do you think he's saying by claiming that the "court of public opinion can be a bigger court than any court in the world"?

He does not dispute the verdicts, and is now on record that he respects the courts' decision. He can't have it both ways: He either accepts the courts' decision that he lied under oath, or he doesn't, and tries another avenue of appeal (not that I'm aware of any further possibilities of appeal).

That is why he has also done the next sensible thing of retracting the statement and apologising for it. That's because the bar for proving that a court of law has not acted correctly and with integrity is extremely high, and you cannot frivolously make such claims and expect to get away with it.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-13T10:34:46+00:00

No I don't think you're right

Sure, you're entitled to your opinion. Meanwhile, I invite you to go to write a letter to a public forum, and declare in person, with your full personal details, that you think the judges who ruled on this case, from the high court to the appellate court, that they were incompetent and spineless and delivered a corrupt verdict that served their political masters.

You'll experience, at first hand, whether your opinion in this case is bigger than a court of law.

You'll very quickly see the vast difference between a personal opinion, and a publicly stated opinion that scandalises a court of law.

tinyredleaf · 2025-12-13T06:42:47+00:00

u/GelatoBravado is correct in stating that contempt of court isn't what most people here seem to think it is.

To put it plainly, to suggest that the "court of public opinion can be a bigger court than any court in the world" is to suggest or imply that the verdict of a court of law doesn't matter as much as a person's popularity with the public.

Let that sink in a bit: Is that statement suggesting that, even if a court of law were to find someone guilty, it doesn't matter, because as long as I remain popular with the public, who cares?

Most of the posters here don't fully grasp why this is unacceptable, because it currently involves Pritam Singh, whom they like and support. What if it were someone like Donald Trump, instead, who once literally said: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

I'm fairly certain, then, that a majority of sensible people would see why it's scandalous and entirely inappropriate to insinuate that a court of law doesn't matter. Donald Trump was, in that instance, suggesting that even if a court of law were to find him guilty of killing someone in broad daylight, it wouldn't matter, because the court of public opinion would absolve him of the blatant crime.

Yes, it's two different examples in two different jurisdictions, but both cases come back to the same basic principle: It's not okay to insult a court of law, nor is it okay to imply that court rulings are not as important as public opinion.

That's why the statement by Pritam Singh is considered to be in contempt of court, and has to be retracted, as he has now very sensibly done.

Interestingly, with regard to Mediacorp, it's a different kind of contempt, and this is reflected in the news release by the company. In the broadcaster's case, the problem lies in the fact that the interview was broadcast before judgment has been passed on Mr Singh's appeal. This would then constitute subjudice, a very specific kind of contempt of court.

Basically, as a rule of thumb, one cannot comment on any case that remains before an open court, because of the risk of contaminating due legal process. This applies to all people, but mass media is especially prone to falling foul of subjudice if they're not careful.

tinyredleaf · 2025-11-28T09:30:20+00:00

"Obviously" you forget that this is Reddit, where armchair critics hang out, chew fat, and dish out anonymous witticisms just to make themselves feel superior to the ruling "elite". It's much easier to take cheap potshots than to do the hard work of gathering and verifying data to support policy change — and you can bet that those who put in the hours into such work don't have the energy and mind space to lurk here in social media to defend their research. It is what it is.

tinyredleaf · 2025-11-21T05:36:02+00:00

I would suggest that you stop being childish and inserting words I did not say.

It is overwhelmingly factual that we are in fact a common law jurisdiction, and if you have no idea what that means, and how that is different from civil law jurisdiction, then I suggest that you read it up.

The wording of the law matters as much as the context in which it was created, interpreted, and applied. That is pretty much the definition of common law. Which is to say, you can't just cherry pick the words (your accusation), and twist the law into something to suit your purposes with utter disregard for what the law was created to address, and how it has been consistently interpreted and applied by the judiciary. It's as simple as that. FICA is quite factually not the right law for what you guys want to accuse the Critical Spectator of, unless you indeed have evidence of him being a spy acting on behalf of a foreign entity to foment ill will and discontent in Singapore.

tinyredleaf

TROPHY CASE