News this week included: Singapore’s fertility rate at a historic low, while traffic deaths hit a 10-year high; Lawrence Wong asserting that there’ll be no “jobless growth” even as AI reshapes the economy (good luck, sir); Deliveroo exits the Singapore market; a Tampines Taoist temple offers blind boxes to attract young visitors (Jom wrote about the broader phenomenon last week); an analysis by The Straits Times (ST) of shrinking home sizes; ST on dealing with burnout at work; PAP MP Shawn Huang awkwardly stitches together the symbolism of the “rooster bowl” with the three supposed “kias” of Singaporean identity: kiasu, kiasi, kiabo; and a CNA investigation that reveals an extensive AI-driven disinformation campaign, through Mandarin videos on YouTube, targeting Lawrence Wong and Singapore—one that “suggest[s] a state backer” (though of course “Beijing” and “China” are not words that can be uttered in the piece).

Politics: Parliament debates the budget...

Last year, the economist Donald Low questioned the government’s “fiscal marksmanship” after it emerged that the FY25 budget surplus was more than S$5bn above estimates. This year, the government’s aim has worsened, with the surplus outstripping projections by S$8bn. Persistent under-estimation, Low had said at the time, feeds a fiscal conservatism that leaves social needs unmet and provokes tax hikes both steep and hasty (cough GST cough).

Gerald Giam, a Workers’ Party MP, took up the theme during this week’s budget debate, claiming that taxes enabling such huge surpluses drain liquidity from the economy, choke household spending, and make people dependent on government handouts. “We need more accurate forecasting that ensures our nation’s abundance benefits current generations as much as future generations,” he said. Further, amidst all the rah-rahing about the surplus and GDP growth—Singapore’s five percent surge in 2025 is considered exceptional for a developed economy—Giam cautioned we’re becoming a “two-speed economy” in which much of the growth is powered by giant corporations and much of the benefits accrue to them. Further, shiny headline numbers obscure serious problems; among others, the fact that the top five percent of households hold a third of the country’s wealth, the ongoing bloodbath in the F&B sector, and youth employment struggles—likely to intensify as AI disruption continues apace, leading to more “jobless growth”. 

Shawn Loh, a People’s Action Party (PAP) MP, felt that far too many are having to contend with the rising costs that attend a burgeoning economy, but without an attendant increase in spending power. This is especially true of retirees with no income. Loh proposed a redistribution scheme in which any surplus beyond the equivalent of two percent of GDP—last year’s was 1.9 percent—would be returned to Singaporeans. This could be done not entirely or necessarily via cash transfers or CDC vouchers, which could stoke inflation, but through CPF top-ups, and rebates on public transport and utilities. 

Others, like Nominated MP Terence Ho, suggested a universal annual dividend, its size determined by the prevalent economic winds. This would go some way toward making Singaporeans feel they’re active agents in the nation’s growth story. It may also inject some transparency into where this flood of money is being diverted, a concern voiced by Pritam Singh, another WP MP. “The government should be conscious of the public cynicism and detachment that grows when Singaporeans cannot see a clear accounting of how public funds are being used and communicated,” he said. It’s unclear, for instance, how the S$40bn earmarked for the Forward Singapore package in 2024 has been used. Singh called for publicly available “report cards” that track the performance of all such major government initiatives. 

Numerous factors, many beyond the establishment’s control, are changing Singapore society swiftly and markedly. To keep up, our social welfare policies too may soon need a radical shift.

Some further reading: In “Why Singapore’s elderly continue to work: reserves and CPF demystified”, Bobby Jay makes an analogous argument about distributing state investment gains to the people. “The government could offer the current CPF rates as a minimum guarantee and then share the actual returns—for example, the 6.9 percent per annum GIC returns over twenty years—it makes on the CPF funds with its citizens.”

Politics: ...and Lawrence responds

The healthcare costs associated with an ageing society can only be met with a “broad-based and sustainable option,” Lawrence Wong, prime minister, told Parliament. Neither additional corporate tax, nor higher taxes on property, vehicles, and income can provide that kind of structural support. And once the government had rejected WP’s suggestion to increase the maximum Net Investment Returns Contribution (NIRC) available for the budget from 50 percent to 60 percent, raising the GST was the only option. No one could have predicted Singapore’s economy would catch fire the way it did—if it hadn’t, and had the GST stayed unchanged, “we would be having a very different debate today.”

Wong defended the government’s awry projections too; doing so is becoming tougher in an increasingly complex global environment, he said. “Because we are so dependent on the external environment, forecasting Singapore’s GDP growth is like forecasting the world’s GDP growth, which is very, very difficult to do.”

Responding to Singh’s call for greater transparency around government spending, Wong pointed to the Public Sector Outcomes Review report, published biannually since 2010, which allows citizens to scrutinise progress in major policy areas. Still, he promised, “I will ask all ministries to provide clearer and more accessible information on major initiatives.”

Politics: Poor ministerial performance metrics?

Singh got stuck in to ministerial salaries too, at a time when a committee has been set up to review whether their compensation, starting at S$1.1m annually for entry-level ministers, is fair. Meanwhile, the bonuses for political office holders, which can be up to six months worth, are dependent on four metrics: the real median income growth rate of Singaporeans; the real growth rate of the lowest 20th percentile income of Singaporeans; the unemployment rate of Singaporeans; and the real GDP growth rate.

Singh asked three pertinent questions. If it’s the Progressive Wage Model, rather than productivity, that nudges up the incomes of the lowest 20th percentile, is that a fair metric to use? As GDP growth becomes increasingly decoupled from job growth—something that Gan Kim Yong, deputy prime minister, admitted last month—should that even remain a benchmark? And in today’s economy, is it underemployment rather than unemployment that is the more telling indicator of socio-economic wellbeing?

Society: The Singaporeans allegedly fighting for the IDF

Last week, a new peer-reviewed study in The Lancet, the first independent population survey of mortality in the Gaza Strip, found that over 75,000 Palestinians were killed in the genocide’s first 15 months, versus the 49,000 initially cited by local health officials. A staggering 56.2 percent of them were women, children, and the elderly. Separately, it also emerged that two Singaporeans may have fought for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) during the genocide. Though unverified, this week K Shanmugam, coordinating minister for national security, said that Singaporeans “are not allowed to go and fight overseas, in foreign causes, whether for countries or for organisations like ISIS, whether they fight in Ukraine or Russia or Gaza, for any side. That will be contrary to our laws and action will be taken.”

Aside from holding dual citizenship, it’s unclear, however, what law they might have contravened, as lawyer Yeoh Lian Chuan and others asserted. In 2022, when the subject of a Singaporean possibly fighting for Ukraine arose in Parliament, Shanmugam quoted section 125 of the Penal Code, under which “it is an offence for a Singaporean to wage, attempt to wage, or abet the waging of, war against the government of any power in alliance or at peace with the Singapore government.” But that law wouldn’t apply here, since Hamas, the IDF’s supposed opponent in the genocide, is not a government recognised by Singapore. (Quite the contrary, Singapore has declared that its actions on October 7th 2023 constitute terrorism.) 

Separately, Singapore has detained individuals under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for wanting to fight for militias and terrorist groups on either side of the Syrian conflict. In “The Curious Case of Wang Yuandongyi: Why Do Some Want to Fight With Anti-ISIS Groups?”, RSIS in 2016 described the arrest of a then 23-year-old, China-born, naturalised Singaporean who may have harboured “an altruistic need to help the Kurds” but also sought “the same form of adventure that impelled ISIS fighters”. But if Singapore marshals the ISA against the alleged IDF fighters, said Calvin Cheng, former NMP, businessman, and PAP fanboy, then “we are equating joining the IDF as supporting terrorism. A position that we cannot diplomatically take.” In its piece, RSIS had asked if it’s time to legislate all this: “banning any Singaporean (or even foreigners based here) from fighting abroad in any armed conflict, regardless of which side he or she supports?” 

This case of the two presumed Israeli-Singaporean fighters has offered us a chance to ponder notions of belonging and statehood in a global city where many boast a patchwork of identities. One popular postulation online: are they women who grew up here without NS obligations, returned to Israel for high school, and were then recruited into the IDF, before they had a chance to renounce at 21 their Singapore citizenship? Whatever the case, presumably old allies Israel and Singapore will sort it out behind closed doors and with minimal diplomatic fuss. 

Meanwhile, against the backdrop of Trump’s Gaza peace plan, Singapore this week strengthened its ties with the Palestinian Authority, when Estephan Salameh, its minister of finance and planning, made an official visit here. (“My dear friend, welcome,” said Vivian Balakrishnan, foreign affairs minister, as the two hugged.) Salameh, a Palestinian Christian, visited the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Sultan Mosque, and Parliament. Whatever Singapore’s complicity in the genocide—from the arms trade to citizens on the battlefield—it would appear that there are many parties who’re ready to move on.

Society: The seniors aren’t alright

The rich fragrance of coconut and pandan that accompanies every bite of kaya toast. The distinct sounds of loved one’s voices. The clarity of the number on an approaching bus. These small sensory experiences shape how we navigate daily life. For many seniors, however, the gradual loss of sight, hearing, and smell is becoming increasingly common, affecting not only their independence, but also the level of care they require.

A new Singapore Eye Research Institute study tracking 2,636 adults aged 60 and above from 2017-2022 found that more than a third of seniors were unaware they had at least one eye disease. Two sight-threatening degenerative conditions—age-related macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy—were particularly underdiagnosed. One in five had significant hearing loss, yet less than one percent of them used hearing aids. A similar number experienced triple sensory loss across vision, hearing, and smell. They were also three times likelier than those with one impairment to face difficulties in daily functioning, and their healthcare costs were four to six times higher.

As sensory decline worsens functional independence, caregiving demands increase. Over the years, several initiatives have been introduced to make health screenings more affordable. One example is Project Silver Screen, launched in 2018 to provide eye, ear, and dental screenings at under $5, with free screenings for Pioneer Generation cardholders. Since 2023, subsidised national screenings, as part of Healthier SG, have provided checks for cardiovascular diseases and cancers. This year’s budget includes the Enhanced Home Caregiving Grant which provides up to S$600 monthly for households caring for seniors, signalling stronger recognition of caregiving responsibilities.

While financial support helps offset care costs, it does not fully address the emotional and practical strain placed on caregivers. Seniors experiencing multiple sensory decline are likelier to experience loneliness and poor mental health, according to University of Chicago research. As seniors adjust to progressive loss, caregivers must not only manage medical and daily living needs but also provide emotional support —an often overlooked form of labour. Often, caregivers deprioritise their own physical and mental health while balancing employment, childcare, and caregiving duties. This strain is likely to intensify as Singapore transitions into a super-aged society, with one in four citizens projected to be older than 65 by 2030. Notably, nearly 14 percent of older adults are themselves caregivers, creating layered caregiving responsibilities across generations. Respite care services—short-term support that provides caregivers temporary relief—are available but utilisation remains low due to limited awareness and troublesome administrative processes.

As Singaporeans live longer with vision, hearing, and smell impairments, the caregiving load will continue to grow in both complexity and intensity. Beyond subsidies, stressed caregivers should be actively guided towards available support services, which in turn need to be easily accessible. An ageing society needs not one, but multiple safety nets. 

Culture: Streaming killed the video star

Remember when you could only get your hands on one video at a time? Run your fingers over the alphabetised spines of thousands of DVDs, only to find that someone else with the same great taste as you had checked out exactly the movie you wanted to watch? Then perhaps you’d pick your way through the labyrinth of floor-to-ceiling shelves, sagging under the weight of cinematic history, and arrive at the counter, where a sweet, soft-spoken auntie would ask you how you were feeling that day. “I might say, I’m depressed,” a Rida Video Centre regular told The Straits Times. “And she’ll say, okay, you’ll see something comical. It’s very homely. You feel you belong.” And then Madam Laurel Khoo, the film encyclopedia who’s kept Singapore’s last video rental store going for over four decades, would hand over what you hadn’t been searching for, but exactly what you needed. Her Coronation Shopping Plaza shop may look like a hoarder’s holdout, but it’s really the opposite: an ark of personal curation and cultural memory amidst a digital deluge. “Netflix cannot chat with you, but we can,” Khoo, who’s in her 60s, said in an interview five years ago. “And we can chat about anything, not just movies.” 

You won’t be able to chat with her much longer. Rida Video Centre will close at the end of April, another domino in a long line of our own making. We’ve sacrificed our pilgrimages to these places for the seductive—but insidious—conveniences of Netflix, Amazon, and Hinge, where you can thumb through a glossy rolodex of algorithmically anodyne movies, groceries, and dates and wonder why, with everything at our fingertips, we’re still dissatisfied and unfulfilled. But it’s clear we crave these spaces in Singapore: the quietly consistent literary community of the Casual Poet Library, the celebrated return of Filmhouse to the venue The Projector vacated, the renaissance of matchmaking. We’ve become so obsessed with leading frictionless lives that we’ve forgotten what the friction offered us. If you have a bit of time this weekend, spend it luxuriating in the pleasures of the slow browse. Pick out a fruit or book based on the promise of its ripe hue or its opening paragraphs, allow yourself to be disappointed if its skin doesn’t give way to sweet flesh or compelling character development. Ask your best friend for what they’re bopping to on rotation, dispute their delight in seizure-inducing techno, but listen to it anyway. Know that to be bored is a privilege, and that the power of choice is a blessing.

Arts: Discipline and punish

A snarl of rattan vines, sketched in white chalk, stretches across a wall of the Esplanade Tunnel. All angular fronds and sharp spikes, the mural is vaguely menacing, almost violent. The rattan plant is perhaps more familiar to us as a product: as furniture, basketry—or tools of discipline. Those light, thin canes with colourful handles, sold in neighbourhood provision shops and stored in many a Singaporean household for one very specific use.

“Rotan Rattan: Meditations”, an ongoing exhibition by Yanyun Chen and Dave Lim, reflects on the private practice of caning in a public thoroughfare. It deftly exposes the socio-cultural norms that both support and justify corporal punishment in the home. Lining the tunnel walls are also little chalkboards featuring local aphorisms. There are expressions of concern, like sayang, a Malay term of endearment that can also mean “what a pity”, and the Chinese euphemism 为你好 (wei ni hao), the reminder that that the sting of punishment is ultimately “for your own good”. Then there are words of admonishment (si kin na, Hokkien for “naughty child”) alongside invocations of filial piety (seva, Tamil for “duty”). These vernacular phrases blur the line between care and control, nurture and harm. They’re accompanied by Chen’s charcoal drawings of raised palms, shaking fists and wagging fingers, gestures her friends and family would reenact when recounting their experiences of being scolded. 

At the heart of the underground commuter passage, a twin cinema poem brings together the parallel perspectives of parent and child, through their shared senses of frustration and helplessness: “Always like that.” / “So how now?” / “Then how?”. Physical discipline may secure compliance, but it also strains parent-child relationships. A 2022 study by the Singapore Children’s Society reveals that such forceful methods have little instructive value, instilling fear without necessarily imparting lessons. Yet the logic of tough love is codified in our vocabulary and inscribed in our muscle memory, and sustains generational cycles of harsh discipline. With the Singapore government doubling down on mandatory judicial caning, corporal punishment continues to be seen as an effective corrective action when all else fails. 

Rattan itself may have something to teach us about restraint. Prized for its flexible stems, the South-east Asian climbing palm has to be steamed or boiled before it is pliable enough for weaving. But in its final form, further exposure to moisture will warp the material and make it brittle. In video footage, we see Lim wiping down woven chairs and stools with a damp cloth, tending to the furniture while also damaging it. It’s a potent metaphor for childhood discipline: a little makes one bend; too much makes one break. 

---

Abhishek Mehrotra, Sakinah Safiee, Corrie Tan, Tracey Toh, and Sudhir Vadaketh wrote this week’s issue.

Letters in response to any blurb can be sent to sudhir@jom.media. All will be considered for publication on our “Letters to the editor” page.

If you enjoy Jom’s work, do get a paid subscription today to support independent journalism in Singapore.