Sigh.. mature estates high demand, low supply. Mature estates has a lot of what families and elderly need. All the resources, schools, pre schools, medical... Transport... National pro-family policy is towards marriage and children. Thus, it encourages married families to move into mature estates.. to be close to their parents as they need the "village support" to help raise a kid. Plus.. pri sch proximity. They didn't stop singles from forming a family nucleus with parents to buy a flat in mature estates. If singles need to travel to mature estates to take care of elderly.. it's radically easier for them to do so than for families with young children to transport them to their parents. Have you wondered how difficult it is to travel with children, especially preschoolers? They can't take grab due to seat belt restrictions (especially if more than one kid as grab family only has seat for 1kid). Travelling with young kids and their barang in public transport.. a lot of things.. really. And to have to hold them and prevent them from dashing anywhere.. And lots of other frustrations if journey is long. Even private car... The parents are not spared from screaming children who refused to be strapped in for the journey. Singles are economic contributors (but for one generation only and it ends there). Families with young children and married couples have potential to contribute for generations economically and defensively. So does govt need to try to make sure citizens have incentive to marry and have children? And no.. this govt policy doesn't cause singles to want to "migrate overseas with no intention to return". At least not to singles with an inch or ounce of gratefulness to their own parents and family who are still here, to the country which has provided a safe haven and highly subsidized quality education in their growing up years, giving these singles access to high paying jobs overseas. They may move overseas for opportunities and greener pastures but remain grateful to their motherland. At the end of the day.. after govt resigned to their fate that they have no way to get these singles to get married after 35.. they can still get their BTO.. can't they? And govt is literally building up all these non mature estates .. and people are reporting good profits. This is a non biased post. But it will seem unfair no matter what.. to singles. Please view this with an open mind. If you are the government.. and you open a can of worms.. what will happen? And when the demand for bigger flats or bto in mature estates rise sky high.. what happens to the families trying to get their village support? Where do they go?

HDB / Govt has always said that HDB flats are for own stay. It is not a means for people to profit from (though citizens think otherwise). It is therefore extremely reasonable to say that bigger HDB flats has to be allocated and prioritised to families who need the rooms and space. Why would singles need so many rooms for own stay?? It is not "excluding" singles. In fact, singles ought to go check out how many are renting from hdb - whole family squeezing into a one room rental while waiting to get their bigger flats. Life is not about you alone, singles. If you have money, and money is not a problem, there are resale flats and private housing. Please, there are many more families out there who need the space, the rooms.. for own stay.. instead of pandering to your "investment and rental". Last but not least, and this is just pure economics - government HAS to encourage marriage and giving birth to children. There is little to no incentive for people to get married and have children if they can get away with singlehood. Honestly.. most females prefer not to bring up another man child (pampered to bits by their parents and who doesn't know how to grow up into their new responsibilities)... Plus all things being equal.. a family of four looking for a single HDB flat contributes more to the economy (think about how much they spend on raising the children) and taxes more than a single person contributing to the economy and in taxes. How do we make sure it's fair to them? Singles bring no continued succession, tax paying citizens to sustain a country's future (brutally honest. And am sorry for saying that). People complain about immigrants yet there is no citizens giving birth.. then how? National policies are at stake here too. After 35 - see how that kinda coincide with near end of biological age for women.. not sure if that's truly the case.. but ok.. govt resigned to fate maybe.. that these folks are not getting married. Fine. Get a flat. Just another POV. Guesswork.

Not an agent. But here is the thing. One doesn't really know where life takes you - unless you take charge and makes sure life is walked the way you want it to. Contrary to some recommendations, you may want to continue on your path. I will give you a take on this. WL is expensive in general. However, it is cheap when taken up young due to the long time horizon. It is useful especially if you have family and children later on, and also as an inheritance gift to them or to your nieces/nephews/charity (if willed or nominated to them).. However, one doesn't know at this age if he or she may get married or have children at all. Balance it. Just get sufficient WL (lock in price) that you think even if end up not having a family.. the surrender value is something useful for emergency/retirement and coffin money. You can then top up with term life (adjusted when lemons rain on you) and do other investments.

Not an insurance agent. But here is what I feel a person with your profile should be getting. 1) Hospitalization plan - this one most basic for sure 2) Term life (TPD/CI) - the payout should sustain you and your dependent should anything happen to you, and amt can be reduced after dependent passed away 3) PA plan - cause it's cheap and offers high payout if involved in accident - plan it tgt with the term life? If can't afford term life even.. then at least get this one. But this doesn't offer CI coverage. Since asking for most basic.. wouldn't recommend WL.. specifically if you are of a certain age.. then it will be very expensive and will not be worth it. Have term life cover for the economic years. Depending on your life philosophy.. you may take death as it comes.. so instead of WL, learn to invest the money and plan for retirement so that should you get a CI or something after retirement, there is money to sustain your life - with medical expenses generally covered by hospitalization plan (so don't scrap this one) and you have no further dependants. Not sure if you have housing mortgage but ensure you have it covered in your insurance planning / HPS. Make sure CPF nomination and LPA is done as well. If you have trusted siblings, relatives, cousins and friends.. let them Know how to help with insurance claims and with your elderly dependant should the unfortunate happen. Last but not least.. if you intend to stay single... Pls plan for own retirement (CPF/ investment/annuity) and mortality if haven't.

War in backyard? Depends on whether the banks, sgx, data centers, factories, offices etc survive the bombing. If they do, there is a rare chance you may see your investments again. Though of course, likelihood is that the "local companies" do not survive well - imagine half or more of the employees dead or the factories bombed. I think it's better to count one's blessings that he is still alive (or sometimes better dead). At that point, it's likely everyone starts anew... and is more concerned about basic survival and maybe bartering for limited resources. Just look at the other wars for inspiration? Safe place to park is where there is no war. E.g. other countries. Or if you are talking about gold or silver.. find a good place to bury it and make sure it's not stolen by thieves. It will come in handy if you survive. If am not wrong, your insurance is excluded from payouts in time of war. But you may still be covered when war ends, if the insurance companies are based overseas and survive? Or come back after the country restructures? Then again, it's either they honour it (based on what's in their system) or you can find your policy documents... Maybe. Just maybe. I don't know.

Luckily.. there are flex options these days. You can consider looking for a simple basic sum assured whole life policy with accelerating feature for early CI / CI / TPD etc with limited pay option. And some policies come with milestone enhancement options (i.e. when you get married/have child etc) that you can consider upgrading the policy if you hit them. The main reason for that is to enrol early to lock in the premium (premiums increase with entry age) and to make sure you have coverage before pre existing illnesses kick in. I take the sum assured as funeral expense so basic sum assured need not be too big but make sure accelerator multiplier is good. The accelerating feature will kick in during your economic years.. so they are like term enhancement. You need to shop around for this and compare though. Term usually does not cover after a certain age (those that do will be very expensive close to old age) but it also depends on your "life /death philosophy" and investment or retirement plans. If you have saved or made plans outside of insurance to cover these during your economic years.. then you should be fine. That said, if you don't hold a regular job, do assess if whole life policies are feasible as they tend to be more expensive. Else, primarily, make sure your hospitalization and personal accident policies are first purchased. You can keep topping up with term insurance when your liabilities or dependent needs increase etc. Multi pay vs single pay CI...if you have a strong family history of CI or lead a super unhealthy lifestyle, by all means go for multi pay CI. Else, this multipay CI option is quite expensive for a 20yo I feel. Get some quotes and compare so you know how much outlay you are looking at. Once you get a regular job, it may be better to explore the disability income insurance that many overlook. This one can provide you with income till you "retire"... And its relatively affordable. Not an agent, all these are just personal opinions for your consideration

This hypothetical question tends to lead ppl to see if they would part with the money in face of filial piety / money sacrifice.. but in reality, the key word I see here is a 95yo. They could make the decision more difficult with a 65yo parent... To be honest, I would ask the grandma (or any aged parent past retirement), do you want to undergo treatment first? This is a question very few children will ask their parents and instead... Decide treatment for them (even if they don't want a surgery!!!). One has to note: 1) Life is a cycle. We all part some day. To some, life still has a lot of meaning or unfilled desires - this may ultimately lead to greater will to survive a crisis or operation. To others, they may be very happy with their life so far, have no regrets, ready to leave, and actually they may just want to go without treatment in case of sudden death or quality of life deterioration after a surgery due to age and risks etc. Instead opt for great palliative care and have good remaining memories with loved ones (spend on creating good memories). 2) For a 95yo, in today's medical environment, the survival is probably pretty close to zero. One is just spending big money to send the person to die on the operating table, opened up... So, considering the above points and number of other dependants under your charge... Decide better...

60% is of course very good if you can do it. Most of the time, people give some amt to parents, deduct basic expenses, insurance etc and are left with 10% to 40% to save. Depending on your goals.. whether saving is for investment, to purchase a house or wedding... You can probably dissect the savings into a few baskets. Below is just a personal opinion.. If you are a savvy investor with sufficient appetite for risk, go ahead and put them into equities etc. Otherwise, I would suggest apportioning part of it back into CPF OA via voluntary contribution (for building up of housing fund) / medisave (to pay for hospitalization insurance premium and for medical expenses). This is probably the best if you aren't investment savvy and would like a risk free way to save up for goals. Part of it into SSB every month or alternate months (once you hit the minimum requirement) as the "emergency funds". Whatever remaining goes into bank account (the interest is still below inflation.. meaning, your money's purchasing power generally becomes "smaller" every year.. so don't count on it for savings...) for immediate needs or own investment say every quarterly.

Let's start off with what you are thinking. You feel they are taking advantage of you by letting you pay? Your concerns are noted in this forum. Won't judge whether you are petty as the circumstances are unknown. 1) Are the parents retired and not earning any income now? 2) Who initiated to eat out with the parents? 3) Who chose the eating location? 4) Who did the ordering? I would be extremely wary of the family if it's the parents who always want to eat out when you are around (and they normally don't do this), chooses expensive places and orders expensive food, then expects you to pay simply because they know you are well off. If they want to eat out, and it's probably just 1 time a month, chooses low to mid range places, seldom order expensive seafood (the most expensive and sometimes bo hua dishes) on the menu... And does pay occasionally, they seem normal. After all, once the kids have earning power, parents seldom pay for their own meals and is paid by the kids (unless you don't, that's why you don't feel it's normal). You are being too petty and reading too much into the situation. I would be cautious if it's the gf who suggested eating out everytime, choosing high end places and dishes, bringing family along just so to allow you to get into their good books but yet, not offering to pay or go Dutch at times. In this case, I suggest you talk to your gf. If parents are retired, goes out with both of you to eat (cause the gf asks them to), usually don't have much opinions on location and order... Then you are indeed petty if you are more well off, is earning a decent income and is being calculative with the parents. As your gf, I would be wary of you to truly care and love your family. There can be more permutations. But if you are going to hawkers, food courts with them and you harping here on paying for their meals, you are not just petty but stingy. But in short, yes, you should always communicate with your gf if you have concerns. Just with your gf.

Frankly speaking, it's not easy to tell. Plus too little info here in the question. If you are well to do, dress like one, and splurge when outside (i.e. so obvious you are rich), and then it's the girl approaching you.. then you just have to monitor more and be careful. It's really not about where the girl stays. So what if it's one room, two room flat or a wealthy girl? Any of these girls have the propensity to be after your "wealth". To truly know a person and the family... reveal little about yourself, be humble, and communicate more. Find out about lifestyle (maintenance), her dreams, ideals, her views on social matters, inheritance fights, how well she treats people of different levels, her type of friends etc. Learn to read body language than to just trust words. It looks like you are just at the starting stage... So spend more time and see with the heart. The rich or wealthy sometimes keep thinking that people are out to eye their money. Some people even think that by "controlling money", they can manipulate people. Money is just another object. You weren't born with it, neither can you leave with it. It's existence, is just to make your life a little better or worse.. depending on how attached one is to it. The worst characters fight over inheritance, tearing their own blood relatives apart, when the money weren't even hard earned by them and if any, granted by deceased to them, is just a gift. There are blissful families with plenty of love at all levels of wealth. There are hateful and estranged families in the wealthy families too. If super worried, do a pre nuptial agreement. Nice women are actually more worried about marrying the wrong guy. And guarding fathers are worried that their daughters marry jerks, especially rich ones as guys with money tend to misbehave or guys who don't know how to treat their wives well. There are probably ways to test water, but it means white lies (not encouraged). Or that the family insist on entering pre nuptial agreements for wives to be. Women who love you for who you are, won't be very much offended by these worldly stuff.