Is marriage just another high-risk investment?

[SINGAPORE] There were 29,237 citizen births in 2024, 1.2 per cent more than the 28,877 citizen births in the previous year. An uptick was to be expected, given that it was the Year of the Dragon, but it was relatively small. 

There is even less cause for optimism if one looks at the marriage statistics. In 2024, there were 22,955 citizen marriages, 5.7 per cent lower than the 24,355 citizen marriages in 2023. The average number of citizen marriages per year in the last five years (23,000) was lower than in the preceding five years (23,600). 

This downward trend in marriages is seen elsewhere, too. Statistics Sweden, for example, reported a 16 per cent decline from the pre-pandemic average. However, where other societies may see a rise in cohabitation and births outside of marriage, Singapore’s social norms are still evolving.

Here, a fall in the number of marriages likely translates to a weaker birth rate down the road, other things being equal. As we all know, fewer kids – and an ageing population – spell bad news for the economy. 

Even as we address the issue of getting more married couples to have babies, we should redouble efforts to encourage more people to tie the knot. 

A contact I know told me that a significant proportion of his female colleagues are unattached, and happily so. The reason given for that was an eminently practical one: “together costs” are spiralling. This term refers to the shared expenses when living together.

Apparently the old adage “two can live as cheaply as one” no longer applies to many among the younger crowd. That’s because each partner continues to pursue the interests they had when they were single: going out for meals, shopping, gaming, partying and travelling with friends. 

Living together adds costs such as groceries, utilities and, crucially, mortgage. If a single person is living at home with parents and siblings, as is often the case, these household costs are shared among family members, with some parents still bearing a larger proportion of such expenses. 

Mortgage payments for the family home are usually less of an issue by then, as the loan would be paid up or close to zero. 

But deciding to buy a home together and taking on a mortgage is a daunting prospect. Furnishing the new flat usually costs an arm and a leg, unless one chooses the DIY route; but how many Singaporeans are a dab hand with a drill and hammer?

And while no one sets out to get married and get divorced later, the possibility of a dissolution of the marriage cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile, with work, an active social life and ample opportunities to travel and enjoy new experiences, the life of a single person is a fulfilling one.   

It’s hard to reason against such arguments. And therein lies the problem. We have become too used to weighing up the pros and cons, looking at the dollars and cents when it comes to making life decisions. 

It’s not surprising then that this attitude also shows in our views towards investing, where many Singaporeans are so terrified at the prospect of scams that they end up with a product that pays minimal interest. Capital-guaranteed, but very little upside. 

So, here’s a suggestion: considering the success of the multibillion-dollar Equity Market Development Programme in exciting investors about the Singapore stock market this year, perhaps a similar philosophy is needed to address this demographic challenge.

Could we boost the “social market” with a programme aimed at making Singaporeans less risk-averse about settling down?