logo
Are we paying too much for convenience these days?

Are we paying too much for convenience these days?

CNA19-07-2025
How much does a bottle of water cost? At the supermarket, it's around S$0.60. At the provision shop downstairs, it's probably at least a dollar.
But at a vending machine or the airport? The same bottle can cost you four to five times more, easily.
Why do we willingly pay more in one context but not the other?
This isn't a conversation about product quality. After all, we're not talking about artisanal spring water infused with ionised minerals.
It is just that when we are feeling hot, thirsty or in a rush, we quickly become willing to trade more money for immediate relief.
This is the convenience premium: We pay a higher price not for a better product, but simply a faster, easier way to get the same thing.
And the dangerous part is, we're doing it more often than ever.
THE CONVENIENCE PREMIUM
Not too long ago, grabbing a meal meant either cooking it at home or taking a short walk over to the nearest hawker centre.
Today, we get our food delivered with a few quick taps on our phone, paying at least 20 to 30 per cent more just to save the effort of cooking, walking or queuing.
In a 2022 survey by food delivery company Deliveroo, more than 60 per cent of Singaporeans said that they used food delivery services more regularly, compared to the time before COVID-19. Singaporeans were also spending more on such services: S$108 a month, a 62 per cent increase from S$67.54 in 2019.
Convenience has become increasingly monetised in Singapore. It is now packaged and priced into nearly every aspect of our daily lives, with merchants and service providers bundling their offerings in strategic ways to charge us more.
We see it in ride-hailing applications with premium surcharges during peak hours and same-day courier services. Pay more for "express delivery" or wait longer, perhaps hours. No one likes to make that frustrating decision.
The rise of a convenience culture means that we are often paying not for a better product or service, but simply for faster, easier access to the same thing.
This has quietly shifted our spending habits. We're no longer evaluating the prices of products and services based on their quality or value – we're simply measuring how quickly or effortlessly we can get what we want.
As more services capitalise on this mindset, the cost of living inevitably creeps up not just through inflation, but through the silent premium of convenience.
THE REAL COST OF CONVENIENCE
First of all, do we really know how much we are spending on convenience?
On its own, a S$3 food delivery fee here and a S$10 ride-hailing surcharge there might seem insignificant. But these add up, perhaps quicker than we think.
Check your favourite food delivery or ride-hailing apps and tally up your total over the last three months – does the figure surprise or shock you? Or do you feel it is still a worthy expense?
Look closer at each individual charge. Ask yourself: Did I really need or want this one delivery or that one ride? Or did I pay for them out of impulse or habit?
This is the paradox of paying for modern convenience. It feels efficient in the moment but over time, it quietly erodes our financial discipline and diligence.
When everything is available on demand, our self-sufficiency also suffers.
Young adults of today are rapidly losing basic skills like preparing our meals or fixing a leaky tap at home. Why bother learning to do either when we can simply pay someone else to do it for us?
THE PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAP OF JUSTIFICATION
Singaporeans are a notoriously busy, overworked group. After a long day, it may feel like a direct ride home or having a meal delivered is worth the S$20 we are paying.
In the moment, the cost appears minor in comparison to the immediate relief it provides. We think: "I deserve this."
Behavioural economists call this "justification bias" – the emotional reasoning we soothe ourselves with on trade-offs that do not make much logical sense.
There is nothing wrong with this. The problem is when we start relying on it too frequently.
What starts as a one-time indulgence can quietly turn into an ongoing expense. Before we know it, spending on convenience has become the default mode of living, and it is difficult for us to go back to more inconvenient times.
Now, convenience in itself is not an evil. Paying a little more to save time can be a smart trade – if you are using that time wisely.
For instance, I'm willing to fork out for a private ride so I can take a quick nap to recharge or make urgent calls in a quiet space.
But if I spend that ride so that I may watch a drama or mindlessly scroll through social media instead, I'm not really buying myself time. I'm buying comfort and that's a very different equation.
DON'T LET CONVENIENCE CONTROL YOU
The busier we are, the easier it becomes to justify spending on convenience. Although convenience has become the currency of modern life, it shouldn't cost us control over our finances.
As with all spending, convenience is worth paying for when the occasional need arises, but certainly not on a daily basis and not at the cost of long-term financial freedom.
So if you find that you are spending a cool four to five digits each year on convenience, it might be time to think about whether cutting down makes more sense.
The next time you are tempted to pay a little more for ease, pause and ask: Is this purchase making my life better in the long run or just easier in the moment?
Are we outsourcing tasks to free up time for meaningful work, rest or relationships? Or are we making a habit out of draining emptying our wallets just to avoid minor hassles and discomfort instead of taking a few minutes to plan ahead?
The price of convenience can be one worth paying – as long as we are aware of what we are truly getting in return.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Johor proposes second RTS link to Tuas ahead of 2027 Johor Bahru–Woodlands line launch
Johor proposes second RTS link to Tuas ahead of 2027 Johor Bahru–Woodlands line launch

Independent Singapore

time23 minutes ago

  • Independent Singapore

Johor proposes second RTS link to Tuas ahead of 2027 Johor Bahru–Woodlands line launch

Photo: Facebook/Onn Hafiz Ghazi JOHOR BAHRU: Johor has proposed a second Rapid Transit System (RTS2) link connecting Iskandar Puteri to Tuas as part of efforts to boost cross-border cooperation with Singapore. The proposal was among several raised by Johor Chief Minister Onn Hafiz Ghazi during a meeting with Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at The Istana on Thursday (July 31), ahead of the planned 2027 launch of the Johor Bahru–Woodlands RTS Link. According to The Star , citing the Facebook post of the Johor Chief Minister, he said, 'In line with the royal decree of Johor Regent Tunku Ismail Sultan Ibrahim, I presented several strategic proposals, including a plan to connect Tuas and Iskandar Puteri via an RTS2 system.' Mr Ghazi also shared that they discussed the progress of the Johor–Singapore Special Economic Zone (JS-SEZ) implementation, including the establishment of the Invest Malaysia Facilitation Centre Johor (IMFC-J), which now serves as the main facilitator for investment support and policy coordination. He added that PM Wong welcomed the JS-SEZ progress and shared positive views on the potential for broader cooperation in energy, regional logistics, and stronger Johor-Singapore ties. According to him, PM Wong also appreciated Johor's efforts in maintaining a fair and competitive labour market and was open to reviewing the proposals constructively. Johor has received over 577 investment enquiries under the JS-SEZ to date, with 70 investors showing serious interest, including 11 referred directly by Singapore's investment agencies, said Mr Ghazi. He also shared that Johor recorded RM30.1 billion (S$9.12 billion) in investments in the first quarter of the year, along with a 6.4% gross domestic product (GDP) growth—the highest among all Malaysian states. 'Overall, the discussions are very positive, and I am confident that this meeting opens a new chapter in the Johor-Singapore bilateral relationship,' he said. /TISG Read also: First JB-SG RTS Link train begins off-site systems integration testing at SRTC () => { const trigger = if ('IntersectionObserver' in window && trigger) { const observer = new IntersectionObserver((entries, observer) => { => { if ( { lazyLoader(); // You should define lazyLoader() elsewhere or inline here // Run once } }); }, { rootMargin: '800px', threshold: 0.1 }); } else { // Fallback setTimeout(lazyLoader, 3000); } });

Billion-dollar money laundering case: 4 law firms linked to seized properties named, 2 more identified and reprimanded
Billion-dollar money laundering case: 4 law firms linked to seized properties named, 2 more identified and reprimanded

CNA

time34 minutes ago

  • CNA

Billion-dollar money laundering case: 4 law firms linked to seized properties named, 2 more identified and reprimanded

SINGAPORE: Four law firms that breached their anti-money laundering obligations over the purchase of properties in the S$3 billion (US$2.2 billion) money laundering case have been named, following the conclusion of investigations into their cases. In an update on Friday (Aug 1), the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) said it had completed the regulatory action related to the four law firms - Anthony Law Corporation, Fortis Law Corporation, Legal Solutions LLC and Malkin & Maxwell LLP. As such, MinLaw added it was now able to furnish more details on their conveyancing of the real estate properties seized as part of the anti-money laundering operation in August 2023. Conveyancing refers to the legal process of transferring the ownership of a property from one person to another. Their penalties were previously made known on Jul 15, but MinLaw then did not name the four firms. It then said 24 law practices were involved in investigations by Singapore's director of legal services (DLS) Sarala Kumari Subramaniam, supported by MinLaw, and 11 of the probes had been concluded. As of Jul 31, 13 of the 24 law practices had been dealt with, the ministry said on Friday. Two more law firms - William Poh & Louis Lim, now known as Louis Lim & Partners, and Templars Law LLC were also named, as inquiries and regulatory action had concluded, it added. With 13 of the probes having concluded, MinLaw also identified five lawyers involved in the conveyancing of the seized real estate properties. They are: Mr Tan Chau Chuang, Mr Andrew Wong Wei Kiat, Mr Tan Tse Chia Patrick, Mr Ee Tian Huat Patrick and Mr Poh Tian Hock William. All have been referred to the Law Society to "consider if there are grounds for further professional disciplinary action against these lawyers". MinLaw previously said on Jul 15 that one lawyer had been referred to the Law Society for disciplinary action, without naming the individual. While a Law Society spokesperson then confirmed that the lawyer had been referred to it for disciplinary action, it was unable to reveal the identities of those involved. "As the referral relates to disciplinary matters, such proceedings are confidential," it then said. ENFORCEMENT ACTION TAKEN All law practices and lawyers are subject to anti-money laundering obligations under the Legal Profession Act 1966. These include performing an adequate analysis of the risks of money laundering in relation to each client and performing customer due diligence measures that are in line with a client's risk profile. Lawyers and law firms also have to file a suspicious transaction report with the police if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a client might be engaged in money laundering. Expanding on the enforcement action taken, the ministry said Anthony Law Corporation had acted for nine clients to convey 25 properties valued at around S$135 million in total. According to MinLaw, its breaches included inadequate scrutiny of the transactions, which was not commensurate with the clients' and transactions' money laundering risks. "Anthony Law Corporation did not corroborate or verify the clients' explanations for why the transactions were being funded by seemingly unrelated third parties, even though these were red flags," it said. The firm also failed to comply with documentation requirements. If a law practice or lawyer decides to continue to act for the client despite suspicions of money laundering, they must substantiate and document the reasons for this and adopt commensurate risk mitigation measures, including enhanced customer due diligence and monitoring measures. However, while Anthony Law retained and continued to undertake transactions for some of these clients despite filing suspicious transaction reports against them, it did not substantiate or document its reasons for why it had considered it appropriate to do so, said MinLaw. The firm was ordered to pay a financial penalty of S$100,000. One of its lawyers, Mr Tan Chau Chuang, has since been referred to the Law Society. Fortis Law Corporation acted for 16 clients to convey 55 properties valued at around S$398.7 million in total. The firm did not conduct checks to verify the clients' claims that the payments for the transactions were indeed from legitimate remittance companies, said MinLaw. As a result, it was handed a financial penalty of S$30,000 and two lawyers - Mr Wong and Mr Tan Tse Chia Patrick - were referred to the Law Society. Mr Wong is no longer practising with Fortis Law. Both Anthony Law and Fortis Law have paid the financial penalty, MinLaw noted. Legal Solutions LLC, the third firm to receive a financial penalty, acted for two clients to convey 20 properties valued at around S$117 million in total. 'It did not adequately document the details of its analysis of the clients' money-laundering risks,' said the ministry. "It also did not perform all the required enhanced customer due diligence measures after it filed a suspicious transaction report, such as documenting its internal discussions on, and reasons for, retaining the clients despite filing the suspicious transaction report." Legal Solutions has been ordered by Ms Subramaniam to pay a financial penalty of S$70,000, while a lawyer, Mr Ee, has been referred to the Law Society. He no longer practices at the firm. Meanwhile, Malkin & Maxwell LLP has been reprimanded to remind it to be mindful of its anti-money laundering obligations and responsibilities. MinLaw said it was taken into consideration that the firm had acted for one client to convey one property valued at around S$40 million. Inquiries revealed that while Malkin & Maxwell conducted checks into the client's source of funds, its independent checks were "not sufficiently in-depth". Instead, it relied unduly on checks that it assumed third parties would have done on its client. William Poh & Louis Lim and Templars Law LLC were also reprimanded by Ms Subramaniam to remind them to be mindful of their anti-money laundering obligations and responsibilities. Mr Poh, a lawyer who previously worked at William Poh & Louis Lim before joining Templars Law, has been referred to the Law Society. According to MinLaw, Mr Poh was the managing partner and sole partner-in-charge of conveyancing matters at William Poh & Louis Lim until around May 2023. During his time at the firm, he commenced transactions for six clients to convey 32 properties valued at around S$246.7 million in total. Twenty-six of those property transactions concluded while Mr Poh was practising with William Poh & Louis Lim, said MinLaw. The lawyer later left the firm in or around May 2023 to join Templars Law, and his previous firm amended its name to Louis Lim & Partners after his departure. Mr Poh brought the remaining six property transactions to Templars Law and concluded the transactions soon after in June 2023, said MinLaw. Some of the breaches observed by Ms Subramaniam included not obtaining certain documents as part of customer due diligence, not adequately scrutinising the clients' and transactions' money-laundering risks and not applying commensurate risk mitigation measures. HOW REFERRALS TO THE LAW SOCIETY ARE HANDLED A lawyer who breaches his or her anti-money laundering obligations is liable, among other things, to face disciplinary proceedings. 'Lawyers whom the director of legal services has referred to the Law Society will be subject to the disciplinary proceedings process and framework in the Legal Profession Act,' said MinLaw. Under this framework, each lawyer's case will undergo further fact-finding by the relevant committee or tribunal to assess if there have been breaches, and if so, the lawyer's individual culpability and any appropriate disciplinary action and penalties against him or her. This disciplinary process is separate from the director of legal services' inquiries and enforcement actions against the law practices. 'We urge the public to refrain from speculating or sharing unverified information while the process is ongoing,' said MinLaw. The billion-dollar money-laundering case involved millions of dollars earned over the years from an illicit gambling ring with Southeast Asian bases, and that was aimed at punters in China. Investigations into the transnational case date back to 2021 and culminated in islandwide police raids in August 2023. Singapore police seized luxury cars, watches, jewellery, designer goods, cryptocurrency and cash. More than 150 properties were also seized, including homes in Singapore's most upmarket neighbourhoods. The fees that Anthony Law, Fortis Law, Legal Solutions, Malkin & Maxwell, William Poh & Louis Lim and Templars Law collected in total from acting for their clients for these property transactions ranged from S$15,000 to around S$170,000, said MinLaw. "In imposing the financial penalties, alongside other regulatory measures that include following up with these law practices on their remedial measures to strengthen compliance with anti-money laundering obligations, the DLS aims to ensure that law practices in Singapore observe their anti-money laundering obligations and keep Singapore a clean and money-laundering-free business- and financial-hub," it added.

Medical expenses paid by Sumo Salad fully reimbursed, but process not over: MOM
Medical expenses paid by Sumo Salad fully reimbursed, but process not over: MOM

CNA

timean hour ago

  • CNA

Medical expenses paid by Sumo Salad fully reimbursed, but process not over: MOM

The Manpower Ministry says that medical expenses paid by Sumo Salad have been fully reimbursed, but investigations are ongoing, with the claims process not yet concluded. On top of medical reimbursements, insured employees can also get lump-sum compensation paid out by the insurer if assessed to have physical incapacity. Ray Louis, Managing Director at Ray Louis Law, talks about what is covered and what is not covered under Workmen's Compensation. He also looks at what happens if a business fails to provide proper coverage.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store