Latest news with #netizens
Independent Singapore
3 days ago
- General
- Independent Singapore
Leaving home at 33: ‘How do I do it without breaking my mum's heart?' man asks
SINGAPORE: At age 33, one Reddit user just took a big step—he is finally getting out of his parents' house and renting a place he can call his own. By some standards, this can be viewed as 'late', and the reactions and feelings tied to this phase of life are real, raw, and completely applicable to many. 'My mom has been incredibly supportive, helping me with things like packing utensils and cookware,' he shared in his post. 'However, deep down, she's also sad that I'm leaving. How can I make this transition smoother for her?' It's an expected intersection in most people's lives: eagerness to be independent, combined with the sentimental pull of parting from a lifetime of shared habits. And as many fellow Redditors joined in, it was obvious that he wasn't alone in his predicament. 'She'll get used to it—eventually' One other netizen, also 33 and renting his own place, gave an earnest encouragement: 'She'll get used to it after a while. What you should do is visit her often. I visit mine twice a week—and nowadays, they actually tell me to stop coming by so much!' The sentiment was echoed by another Redditor who took a more measured style. 'I moved into my own place at 30, but I started planting the idea in their heads when I was 28,' he explained. 'We started with weekly video calls, then met in person every other week. Now it's a mix of WhatsApp messages and occasional restaurant meetups.' It's not about distance—It's about connection The most common suggestion is to maintain constant communication, no matter how far or near one moves. 'Will you be renting a place far from your current home?' inquired one commenter. 'If it's close, maybe go home for meals often. I had a friend who moved out after getting married, and she and her husband made it a habit to visit each other's parents every Monday, alternating weeks.' Another offered practical guidance: 'Call or text them regularly. Go home for meals or order in. And bring them to see your new place—it helps make them feel included in your next chapter.' A transition for both sides What's apparent from the thread is that moving out, even in your 30s, is not just about searching for and finally finding your own space. It's also about reshaping your relationship with the people who served as a continuous source of support. For this Redditor—and many others like him—it's not just about evacuating a childhood bedroom or finally leaving a teenager's sanctuary. It's about creating newfangled rituals, keeping relationships strong, strengthening established bonds, and discreetly guiding loved ones through the transformed stage. Moving out is a game-changer at any age. But as the Redditors gently remind, with a dash of intention and a lot of heart, the changeover doesn't have to mean growing separately or drifting apart; it only means walking in a new direction.
Independent Singapore
4 days ago
- Independent Singapore
Woman trailed to Pilates class by stranger with phone, netizens debate legality
SINGAPORE: In a current viral Reddit post, a young woman narrated a troubling happenstance: a man she didn't know and had never seen before trailed her all the way to her Pilates class, with a camera phone in hand, purportedly taking photos of her. She labelled him as a 'pervert,' distressed by the fact that even in a public space, she felt anything but safe. But the story didn't end with her embarrassment. In the comment section of that Reddit post, there was a torrent not just of empathy, but of piercing discussions, legal opinions, and painful truths about how people navigate shared spaces in the era of smartphones. 'It's legal – but is it right?' A repeated theme from netizens was this: taking photos of people in public, while scary, isn't prohibited. 'As vile or repulsive as one may find it, taking photos of others in a public space is not an offence,' one user said. 'It's a big stretch to prove harassment.' Legally speaking, they're correct. In most territories, the right to privacy doesn't cover public situations. If someone's out in the open, photos can be taken of them, whether they're aware of it or not, or if they are comfortable with it. That reality was unsettling to many readers, particularly in a situation where a woman feels followed and objectified. 'Imagine you're just using your phone and someone thinks your angle looks suspicious—and suddenly people pin you down,' another commenter remarked, alluding to that the man in question was confronted physically. 'Those guys are lucky they didn't get charged.' When behaviour crosses a line However, others were quick to point out that there's a difference between taking a photo in a leisurely manner and following someone around. 'This is textbook stalking,' a commenter stressed. 'Nobody should be alarmed if they had their photo taken by a stranger in public. But if that stranger starts following them around, anybody would feel threatened.' There certainly is a key difference. While the law might not plainly outline this grey zone, informally and ethically speaking, the responses were far more unified. Trailing someone for a long period alters a permissible act into one of danger. One user even questioned why the man hadn't been detained, saying that constant following could be viewed as aggravation and harassment in many other legal systems. Freedom of expression or lack of respect? Another aspect of the conversation spun around clothes and permission, a theme as old as the public decorum dispute itself. Some contended that if a woman is donning form-fitting clothes in public, she tacitly invites attention. 'The same liberty that allows you to dress how you want,' one person claimed, 'also extends to others being able to photograph you.' Another commenter chimed in, 'If you don't think your outfit is too sexual, then the photos of it shouldn't be either.' But many discussants were quick to call this reasoning defective and risky. The notion that someone's clothing choices one way or another reduce their right to feel safe is a fragment of a bigger societal problem, one that has long beleaguered discussions about consent. 'There's a difference between looking and leering, between existing and stalking,' one netizen snapped. 'Not her fault, but…' – A troubling perspective As anticipated in situations like this, some remarks faintly deviated into victim-blaming. One user wrote: 'Not blaming her for her dressing or anything, but it's not an offence to take pictures. So, I don't get what she's so upset about.' Another weighed in, 'If this keeps happening to her, maybe she's unlucky—or maybe she's drawing attention with how she dresses.' Such views, while often outlined as concern or reason, echo a societal inclination to place responsibility on women to foil wicked actions from others, instead of holding the wrongdoers liable. The bigger picture This Reddit thread mirrors more than just one person's bad day. It's a picture of a society grappling with the restrictions of what is legal and what is decent, amidst the changing standards of a digital world. Yes, public spaces are shared, and yes, people have the right to take pictures of what they see. But when the camera lens turns into an instrument for terrorisation, or when people feel panic-stricken rather than observed, the conversation needs to shift.
CNA
6 days ago
- Business
- CNA
Commentary: What does it matter if Singaporeans spend their CDC or SG60 vouchers on ‘frivolous' items?
SINGAPORE: From this month, Singaporeans can start claiming their SG60 vouchers. Each adult citizen will receive S$600 in vouchers, while those aged 60 and above can claim S$800. This comes on top of S$800 in Community Development Council (CDC) vouchers which were given to each household earlier this year. Retailers have lost no time in offering discounts and promotions to entice Singaporeans to spend their vouchers on their products and services. However, a newspaper article published in May suggesting fun ways to make use of CDC vouchers – such as on dance apparel and craft workshops - prompted a flurry of online responses from netizens who felt that spending the vouchers on 'frivolous' items went against the stated intent of the vouchers, namely to help Singaporeans with the cost of living. IS THE ANGST JUSTIFIED? The truth is that while the vouchers are a lifeline for some households and individuals struggling with high living costs, they are for others no more than extra pocket money or even spare change. So is the angst over how the vouchers are spent justified? There are those who feel that SG60 vouchers should be distinguished from CDC vouchers in that the former are a celebratory gift while the latter are aimed at easing hardship. Others are not bothered about how vouchers – whether CDC or SG60 – are used. Their view is that once public money passes into private hands, people should be free to do whatever they want with it. After all, whether the vouchers are used to buy bread or a fancy meal, the spending will ultimately benefit businesses and boost the economy. Some have asked: Could the government have ringfenced the use of the vouchers to daily necessities? It is hard to draw a clear line between essential and discretionary expenditure. Moreover, money is fungible – saving on any kind of purchase frees up financial resources for spending on other items. There is a strong consensus among economists that giving assistance in cash or near-cash does more to improve consumer welfare than support that comes with conditions or restrictions because it offers recipients greater freedom of choice. DIFFERING SOCIAL BENEFIT PARADIGMS The crux of the issue may lie in differing concepts of what is prudent use of government money. On the one hand, there are Singaporeans who prefer not to receive cash handouts or vouchers as they feel that such support ought to be chanelled to the lower-income. This group is more likely to take umbrage at the use of vouchers for non-essential purchases. Targeting government support at those who need it most is still the approach adopted for most forms of social support in Singapore. These include means-tested housing and healthcare subsidies, as well as permanent social transfers such as the Workfare Income Supplement, Silver Support and the Goods and Services Tax Voucher. This paradigm of social support contrasts with models of universal welfare where social support is seen as a citizenship right. The latter, however, necessitates high taxes to enable extensive redistribution. In Singapore, the government's priority is to keep taxes on the middle class low in order to encourage work and enterprise. Under what is known as a 'progressive' system of taxes and benefits, the rich bear a larger burden of taxes, while those with lower income receive more in social transfers or benefits. Consistent with this approach, the Ministry of Finance estimates that the bottom 20 per cent of households by income receives around S$4 in benefits for every dollar of tax paid, while the top 20 per cent receive just S$0.30 for every tax dollar. On the other hand, there are Singaporean who feel that all citizens who contribute to the state's coffers should be entitled to a range of benefits, and not just limited to public goods such as national security or infrastructure. Some may feel aggrieved if they are excluded from certain benefits on account of their income or wealth, particularly if they are contributing a significant amount in taxes. Like wealthy donors at a charity dinner who take pleasure in good food and a door gift, these high-income earners derive satisfaction from receiving vouchers and other Budget goodies, even if these offset only a small fraction of what they pay in taxes. AN INJECTION OF UNIVERSALISM Singapore's approach towards social benefits is in fact evolving. More recently, the COVID-19 pandemic saw the government disburse a 'solidarity payment' of S$600 to all adult Singaporeans in recognition of the broad impact of the pandemic on the population, with additional support given to seniors and families with children. Rebates on utilities and service and conservancy charges, however, were tiered according to Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat type. Those who lost jobs or saw a significant fall in income could apply for further financial help through the COVID-19 Support Grant or COVID-19 Recovery Grant. Taken together, Singapore's COVID-19 support can be seen as a form of 'progressive universalism' – where everyone receives some benefits, but those with greater needs receive more. Following the pandemic, supply chain disruptions saw inflation shoot up across the world, including in Singapore. The government responded with a series of payouts to all Singaporeans in the form of CDC vouchers – the vouchers having the dual aim of providing cost of living support while giving heartland merchants a leg-up. Notwithstanding these examples of universal benefits, most social support is still means-tested or tiered according to income or home value. There are advantages to having a mix of benefits – some universal and others means-tested with differing qualifying income thresholds. This approach avoids a 'cliff effect' where benefits drop off suddenly when one's income crosses a particular threshold, which could discourage career and income advancement. Some elements of universality also make for greater inclusivity and sense of solidarity among citizens. A MIDDLE WAY? As inflation has receded from the post-pandemic highs, we may see fewer CDC vouchers disbursed in future. But for this year at least, vouchers are very much a part of the conversation. Singaporeans who have no need for this support can easily donate unused vouchers to their preferred Institutions of Public Character via the CDC voucher website; they will even qualify for a 250 per cent tax deduction. For those who are still in two minds on how government vouchers ought to be spent, perhaps a good strategy would be to set aside a portion of the vouchers to give away, and then spend the rest on whatever you wish with a clear conscience.
Independent Singapore
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Independent Singapore
Netizens make fun of door that appears to go nowhere at Sengkang void deck
Screengrab/ Complaint Singapore SINGAPORE: A doorway that appears to have no discernible purpose baffled many netizens when a video of it was shared on Facebook last month. Although the person who posted it did so on the popular Complaint Singapore group page, they said it was not a complaint, but they wanted to know why such a door exists in the first place. The 12-second clip begins with a door on the void deck that bears the label 'Staircase B.' The person who took the video then walks around to show the door from the other side. Screengrab/ Complaint Singapore Screengrab/ Complaint Singapore The door is useless in keeping anyone out, but neither does it lead anyone into any specific place. It is located at Block 465A Fernvale Road. Incidentally, according to Shin Min Daily News, these doors may also be found at Blocks 465B, 466A, and 466B . Nevertheless, netizens who commented on the Complaint Singapore post had a lot of fun with the seemingly purposeless door. The post has since been viewed over 75,000 times, shared over 100 times, and received over 230 comments. A few jokingly called it a 'Doraemon door,' which is a reference to the iconic bright pink door from the anime and manga, where users can travel to any place they can imagine. 'They haven't finished it, they still have to paint it pink colour… then Doraemon will come,' one quipped, while another wrote, 'Doraemon left it there.' Some commented that a feng shui master might be responsible for the door. Others, having the Hungry Ghost Month festival in mind, left some creepy comments on purpose. 'You will see the Stair… during the Hungry Ghost Festival (7th month),' wrote one. ' This one for spirit… Just like tekong 3rd door,' which scared at least one other commenter. For those unfamiliar with it, this refers to the Pulau Tekong Charlie Company 3rd Door Bunk, which Asia Paranormal Investigators describe as 'a well-known army urban legend among the soldiers of Singapore.' (It's decidedly shiver-inducing, and you can read more about it here .) One commenter endeavoured to provide a logical explanation, writing, 'It has something to do with fire spreading… it doesn't make sense, but it is supposed to help in a time of fire. I am not a fireman, so maybe a fireman can explain better.' Others, however, explained that this cannot be the case. /TISG Read also: 'I thought toilet got ghost': TikTok user says she saw something scary at bathroom at CBD () => { 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); } });
Independent Singapore
7 days ago
- Independent Singapore
Car drives against traffic on Republic Boulevard, narrowly avoids head-on collision
Photo: SINGAPORE: A car was caught on camera driving against the flow of traffic along Republic Boulevard in the early hours of Friday morning (11 July), nearly causing a serious accident. According to a 16-second dashcam clip shared on the Facebook page, the incident took place at around 4:53am. The footage shows the dashcam driver travelling normally when headlights suddenly appear head-on in the same lane. Faced with the oncoming vehicle, the driver made an abrupt swerve to the right in an attempt to avoid a collision. The manoeuvre caused the car to crash into a roadside barrier. The video shows how close the two vehicles came to a head-on impact in the split second before the dashcam car struck the roadblock. Footage from the rear camera revealed that the car travelling in the wrong direction did not stop after the near-miss and continued along Republic Boulevard. The video quickly sparked heated discussions among netizens after it was posted. Many commenters condemned the act of driving against traffic, calling it extremely reckless and warning that such behaviour could lead to fatal accidents. One commenter wrote: 'Fortunately, the driver reacted quickly,' while others urged motorists to remain vigilant at all times, especially in low-light conditions when visibility is poor and mistakes can have grave consequences. () => { 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); } });
