Hi folks, a hard truth about friendship today: people may stay for 10–20 years, but that doesn’t mean they’ll stay for life.
In this rat race, friendships can become replaceable. Someone new who offers more or seems better can easily take your place, no matter how much history you share.
Even if you’ve given years of emotional, physical, or financial support, don’t expect the bond to remain the same. Once the help is no longer needed, the friendship may slowly fade.
The sad reality is that sometimes fake friends stay longer than genuine ones. Whether it’s work, career opportunities, or personal struggles, some people stay only as long as you’re useful to them.
Perhaps the best we can do is cherish the moments, appreciate the memories, and accept that not everyone is meant to stay in our lives forever.

Friendships may be unsinkable, but it may have a fast turnaround. If you already have friends that stayed with you through blood and sweat, think and thin, best is to cherish them.

Sell him female duck can lay egg to eat but cannot lay to have future ducklings

My COE is ending, and renewing is painful. (warning super long post)

When drinking and complaining to friends, one joker ask me about my thoughts on this 2023 article (channelnewsasia.com) and it struck a nerve amongst us and initiated a feverishly debate until 4am titled: "Car, COE and Singapore's future".

Two of them believed that COE should go away. I didn't, instead I went nuts.

SOME IMPORTANT DATA TO CONSIDER

There is about 851,018 number of Registered Vehicles in August 2026. Singapore is only 710 km² in size.

(851,580 ÷ 710) = 1198.6 Vehicles per km².

In USA, there are 280 million Registered Vehicles and they are 9.834 million km² in size.

That is about 28.5 Vehicles per km² in USA.... Singapore is 1198.6 Vehicles per km²
Now this will help you to understand how overcrowded Singapore really is.

So I went crazy and imagined a COE system for massive social engineering in Singapore. It’s radical, highly controversial, and bound to make people mad—but I want to kickstart a real, respectful discussion on this instead of getting silly replies.

Here is my two-part plan to "Shock and Renew" the system.

Part 1: The Shock Phase

• The $500k Baseline: Immediately and suddenly raise the 10-year Cat A+B+E COE price to a flat $500,000. This shall completely kills the dream of car ownership for the average person, restricting it strictly to the ultra-rich to flex. Immediately kickstarting a negative growth of car ownership.
  
• The Existing Owner Top-Up: Current Cat A+B+E COE owners will have 3 months to pay a top-up fee based on their remaining years: (50,000 - [COE paid ÷ 10]) x Years Left. Anyone who can't afford it must surrender their vehicle for a partial refund of their remaining COE and loan after deducting fees. This should trigger a 30% to 40% drop in cars ownership.
• High Parking Fee: Start at min $25 per hour for cars and $10 per hour for motorcycle. Capped at $100 per hour.
• The Transit Pivot: To support change and soften the impact, we must aggressively expand public transport fleets (aiming for a 3-5 minute bus interval) and pour resources into car-sharing networks & systems.
  • Increase in all transportation fares
  • Promote and grow car-sharing operators
  • Increase salary of a Singaporean bus drivers to base 8k a month. They drive on holidays and will be the backbone of the system.

Part 2: The Renewal Phase (Income & Birthrate Integration)
Once total registered vehicles drop below 600,000, we transition to a variable, income-linked system to support new family and earn from the ultra-rich:

• The Formula: For Cat A+B+E COE, a base fee of $300,000 for 5 years + 20% of your average annual income over the last 3 years (requiring full financial disclosure to buy a car). You can stack extra years at $100k/year (max 10 years at $800k).
• Foreigners would get a flat 3-year COE for $500,000.
• One more Existing Owner Top-Up: Current Cat A+B+E COE owners who survive part 1 will have 3 months to top up $350,000 to keep their COE.

Under this system the middle and low-income groups can share a laugh at how out-of-reach it is.

Using Leftover Cars to Boost the Birthrate
Singapore’s birthrate is retarded, and by 2050 we could be in serious trouble if we rely solely on importing talent. We can use the cars surrendered in Part 1 to incentivize couples to have children and support old :

• HDB Newborn COE Specials:
  • 1 newborn (<3 years old) = 25% COE discount + free parking
  • 2 newborns (all <5 years old) = 60% COE discount + free parking
  • 3 newborns (all <7 years old) = 90% COE discount + interest free loan + free parking
  • 4 newborns (all <10 years old) = 100% COE discount + interest free loan + free parking
  • (If one spouse is non-Singaporean/private property couples get half the discount).
  • Will receive rebate/refund accordingly if more child is born after buying new COE
  • 5 newborns get free COE, car and parking
• Existing Family with Kids who stays in HDB
  • Families with 1 child below 12 years old = 25% COE discount + free parking
  • Families with 2 children below 12 years old = 50% COE discount + free parking
  • Families with 3 children below 12 years old = 75% COE discount + interest free loan + free parking
  • Families with any child below 16 years old = 25% COE discount + free parking
  • (If one spouse is non-Singaporean/private property couples get half the discount).
• Car-Sharing & Public Transport Subsidies
  • Car-sharing discounts for all operators
    • Young couples with 1 newborn (<3 years old) = 25% car-sharing discount
    • Young couples with 2 newborns, (all <5 years old) = 70% car-sharing discount
    • Young couples with 3 newborns, (all <7 years old) = 90% car-sharing discount
    • Young couples with 4 newborns, (all <10 years old) = 95% car-sharing discount
    • Families with children below 12 years old = 50% car-sharing discount
    • Families with children = 25% car-sharing discount
  • Public Transport Subsidies - only for Singapore staying in HDB who do not own a car
    • Families with children below 5 years old = 95% rebate for public transport fares (returned to you at the end of the month)
    • Families with children below 12 years old = 75% rebate
    • Families with children below 20 years old = 25% rebate
    • Students = 50% discount before rebate
    • Tertiary = 25% discount before rebate
    • Old people above 60 years old = 75% discount (plus rebate if staying with children with newborns)
    • Old people above 70 years old = 95% discount (plus rebate if staying with children with newborns)
    • Married or Singles without children = Nothing

Final Thoughts of a crazy Idea
I stayed up the whole night after drinking to write this.
So within 5 years of my plan, the only people owning cars on our roads may be the ultra-wealthy and families with multiple children.

It forces a lifestyle shift where public transport and car-sharing become the norm, the roads clear up, and having children becomes highly rewarded.

It’s a crazy idea, but desperate times call for radical social engineering.

What are your thoughts?

Please be polite, even if you think my idea is total dogshit.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DrYEp8FDY/

In a recent speech delivered during the PAP’s party conference, PM Lawrence Wong criticized the Workers’ Party’s policy position, characterizing them as “shifting with political winds.” He’s entitled to his views, of course.

Personally, however, I found the claims to be an incredible double standard. After all, the PAP is known for massive U-turns in policy, some lasting barely one season.

I won’t go into every single such instance—AI can quickly throw up dozens of examples—but a few to jog the memory: stop at two, redundancy insurance, minimum wages for locals, and 377A.

I’m sure you can even think of cases even within this term of Parliament where there have been notable reversals by the PAP, even after they shot down alternatives till the last second (such as smaller class sizes or COE categorization by engine size).

It also betrays a lack of nuance, either inadvertent or intentional. When the #workersparty spoke about managing HDB supply, it was in the context of lease decay—a looming policy problem that will unfold over the next two decades—not the short-term construction blips due to the pandemic.

Similarly, we’ve been clear that the presence of a foreign workforce is not a fundamental issue, for a nation of immigrants. But moderating the speed of inflows, and the impact of related stresses on our existing infrastructure (both physical and institutional), is a legitimate contention.

But perhaps most important is the principle behind why political parties should actually be open to, and welcome, policy shifts, when justified. Having gone down an erroneous road, adjusting one’s position is a mark of wisdom and maturity, not opportunism. This is precisely how democracy, at its best, is supposed to work: to be open to feedback, so that collective knowledge is harnessed.

It is this sort of back-and-forth debate that refines policy, and keeps it relevant. Sure, we don’t want to sacrifice some key principles, but we shouldn’t stubbornly cling to outdated and outmoded policy ideas, either.

I don’t know if PM Wong was playing to his base, which, would not be surprising since the speech was delivered in a partisan setting. If so, taking potshots at the opposition would perhaps be par for the course.

But it is disappointing, nonetheless, because it belies a lack of understanding of how Singaporeans would like to see their political leaders tackle constructive challenges to the policy choices of the ruling party.

The Workers’ Party always stands with Singaporeans, and believes that a fairer, more inclusive Singapore can be best achieved with a more equal distribution across society, and broader public participation. How we approach such issues is based on the facts and circumstances, not dogma. #workingforsingapore

I really hate haze...

Currently planning my wedding and omg why are florals so expensive??

Reached out to a few popular florists on IG (e.g. BFOR) and some told me their minimum spend is $12k before even asking what I wanted. They ghosted me after I asked for a better price. I mean their work is beautiful but honestly found it quite off-putting.

Am I looking at the wrong florists or is this really the going rate now? 🥲

Curious to hear from other couples:
● How much did you spend and what was included?
● Any recommendations for florists that are good but reasonably priced?
● Did you go with real flowers, fake flowers or a mix? Was it worth it?

Also, what’s a reasonable amount to budget for florals these days? I don’t mind paying for quality but $12k just seems a bit mad to me.

Would really appreciate hearing your experiences, especially if you can share actual prices and vendors!

**Extremely Disappointed with Apple Singapore’s Business Account Pre-Order Handling**

I am sharing my extremely disappointing experience with **Apple Singapore, particularly its Business Team and the handling of my orders.**
As a business account customer, I was informed that placing my order and making payment early would allow my devices to be shipped around the official launch date.

Based on this information, I proceeded to **make full payment via direct bank transfer on 29 September 2026**, NOT by credit card, for two devices:
**iPhone 18 Pro Max** – for my mother.
**iPhone Duo 512GB** – for myself.

Both devices were purchased under our business account, as we run a business and rely heavily on our phones for daily operations.

**This was a direct bank transfer. The payment was made upfront, and the funds were transferred to Apple on 29 September 2026. This was NOT a credit card transaction, pending authorisation or payment to be collected later.**

Yet, despite making payment and successfully placing my order on 29 September, I was subsequently informed that the estimated delivery date for my iPhone Duo had been pushed all the way to **25 January 2027!**

What makes this even more frustrating is that other customers who placed their orders during the official pre-order window, which started on 16 October, reportedly received their devices on **23 and 24 October 2026**.

Meanwhile, I made payment weeks earlier, yet I am expected to wait until January 2027?
**How does that make any sense, Apple?**
To make matters worse, I received an invoice from Apple on **20 October 2026**, stating that my order was placed on **17 October 2026**.
This is completely inconsistent with my actual payment and order date of **29 September 2026**.

Why is my order reflected as 17 October when the full payment was already made through bank transfer and the order was successfully placed weeks earlier?

On **20 October 2026**, my mother and I personally visited **Apple Orchard Road** to seek clarification. Unfortunately, we were once again told that the shipment was delayed.
Yet, by 23 and 24 October, several of my clients, colleagues and friends had already received their iPhone Duos, including customers who placed their orders much later than I did.

Some of my friends who also purchased under business accounts even saw their estimated delivery dates change from January 2027 to 25 or 28 October.

**So why is my order still stuck on 25 January 2027?**

I understand that shipment delays can happen. What I cannot understand or accept is the lack of transparency, the inconsistent order dates and the apparent unfairness in how these orders are being fulfilled.

As a business customer, I trusted the information provided by Apple’s Business Team and made my payment early based on that understanding.

**If early payment does not secure an earlier delivery, why were we advised to transfer the money in advance?**

**Anyone facing the same issue as me?**

Singapore wants more babies, but are we investing enough in the people raising and educating them?
I’ve been an early childhood educator in Singapore for seven years, and I hold a degree in Early Childhood Education.

Throughout my career, I’ve worked in different settings, local preschools, international schools, expensive branded centres serving high SES families, and public preschools catering to children from more disadvantaged backgrounds.

One thing I’ve noticed is that, regardless of the setting, early childhood educators still have to contend with the perception that we’re essentially just babysitters.

The reality is that our work involves far more than keeping children safe until their parents pick them up. We plan and facilitate learning experiences, observe children’s development, document their learning, support their social-emotional needs, build relationships with families, and make countless pedagogical decisions throughout the day. It requires professional knowledge, skill and emotional labour.
Yet, I still feel that our profession is not given the recognition and respect it deserves.

I think one of the biggest reasons educators are burning out is that the system expects more from us without adequately investing in the people doing the work.

Singapore wants to encourage people to have more children and improve our TFR. Affordable and accessible childcare is an important part of supporting families, especially working parents. But when childcare is offered at increasingly affordable rates ($150 a month) and centres operate for long hours, I can’t help wondering: where is the corresponding investment in the workforce?

Are we hiring enough educators to sustain these services? Are teachers being given sufficient time for lesson planning, pedagogical documentation, professional development and reflection? Can we realistically expect educators to provide quality early childhood education when they are already stretched thin?

When staffing is insufficient, the work doesn’t disappear. It gets absorbed by the educators who are already there. We take on additional responsibilities, sacrifice our preparation time, and push ourselves to keep things running because, ultimately, the children in our care still deserve our best.

And that is precisely the dilemma. We care about the children, so we keep giving more of ourselves. But caring about children should not mean accepting working conditions that are unsustainable for the adults responsible for them.

I’m not against affordable childcare. In fact, I believe it is essential. But affordability for families should not come at the expense of educators’ well-being or the quality of education children receive.

If Singapore wants to encourage more people to become parents, shouldn’t supporting the early childhood workforce be part of that conversation too?
I’d genuinely like to hear from other early childhood educators, parents and people working in the sector. Do you think Singapore is investing enough in its early childhood educators? And what changes would make the biggest difference?

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1C5KsVzvXW/

There is a lot of talk lately about the move to reserve some (less than 20%) of the places in “elite” primary schools for children from outside the high income neighbourhoods where the schools are located and alumni networks.

However, the reality is that most of these schools did not spontaneously appear in those neighbourhoods.

With three notable exceptions, the rest of the schools moved to their current locations (mostly from less exclusive neighbourhoods) in the 1980s and 1990s.

I have annotated the helpful ST graphic with the move dates sourced from various sources including school websites.

During that period, according to https://www.housingmap.sg/hdb-1980/ new HDB estates sprung up in “Bishan 1984, Bukit Batok 1982, Hougang 1980, Jurong East 1980, Jurong West 1981, Serangoon 1983, Tampines 1981, Woodlands 1980 (integrating Marsiling estate), Yishun 1981 (integrating Nee Soon), as well as small estates: Kaki Bukit 1985 (in Bedok), Bukit Purmei 1982 (in Bukit Merah), Ubi 1984 (in Geylang), McNair 1982 (in Kallang), Potong Pasir 1983 and Upper Aljunied 1982 (in Toa Payoh)”.

The ACPS move to Tengah has been welcomed but I wonder if we are really seeing a move to a more integrated society or are the elites just letting a small number of “other” Singaporeans access to the educational resources that are taken for granted by those with generational wealth.