But reading some of the material on the newly-launched Marriage Central website, billed as a "one-stop portal that will offer couples easy access to marriage-related information and programmes", makes you wonder if they could be overly earnest.

Other than articles covering everything from planning a wedding to staying together long-term, advice from experts on dealing with relationships and stories about real-life couples, there's a small sidebar on the site titled "365 tips for love to work".

Click through them and you'll see that they range from the run-of-the-mill, to the mildly amusing and to the eyebrow-raising. Some examples:

- Refill your spouse's cup.

- Play 'hide-&-seek' at home.

- Carve 'I LUV U' on a bar of soap.

- Share a sausage from opposite ends. (Inspired by The Lady and the Tramp?)

- Play 'Role Reversal'. (Hmm, very enigmatic. What does that mean?)

To remain relevant to Singaporeans, the tip-writers have also added a local twist to some of the suggestions, such as:

- Explore Fort Canning Park.

- Go for a trishaw ride together.

And my pick of the lot:

- Give a bottle of Tabasco with a note 'U R HOT!'.

I will never look at a bottle of Tabasco in the same way again.

Oh wait, I'm not part of a couple, so I'm not the target audience. But if my reaction is typical of the average (cynical) Singaporean, the group has their work cut out for them.

What do you think of the tips? How would you react if your partner took a cue from them? Are the tips at www.marriagecentral.sg relevant to you? Leave your comment below.

Once a year, the local consumer watchdog would hold an event to mark the occasion.

Otherwise, it goes by without much of a blip on our radar, which is a pity, because there’s still a long way to go in terms of consumer education.

Take for instance, the stories that have been reported about those stuck with timeshare deals that they can’t get out of, cashback schemes that don’t materialise or products that don’t work.

Those highlighted cases, which pop up in the media occasionally, are just a fraction of the woes that consumers face.

Some were enticed into signing contracts worth thousands of dollars with verbal promises or pressured into doing so through presentations that go on for hours.

Others believed the claims about a product without further probing.

I once spoke to a lady who had bought an energy-saving device, a rectangular box with a three-pin plug that supposedly helps you save electricity consumption if you plug it into any socket at home, 24/7. The family had been using it for six to seven years.

So, does it work? I asked.

She didn’t know. The family had never compared their electricity bills before and after installing the device.

(By the way, I’ve asked some academics about this and their opinions are divided about whether such energy-saving devices work. So, if you do decide to get such a product, do some research and pick one that comes with a window period for refund.)

What struck me about the example above, and many consumer horror tales, is the lack of scepticism on the part of the buyer.

How can you be so sure the seller is telling the truth when they’re getting you to part with your money (sometimes, a large sum of money)?

Going by the company’s reputation, getting friends’ feedback and, when it comes to too-good-to-be-true claims, asking for proof or documentation, are some ways. What I’ve also found useful for sussing out unfamiliar companies: You can check if a company is registered by doing a company search at the Accounting & Corporate Regulatory Authority website (www.acra.gov.sg). You can also buy a copy of the company’s business profile to find out more information, like how long they’ve been in business and how much share capital they have.

Sure, we do have legislation protecting consumers and ways to lodge a claim. But by the time you realise that something is wrong and try to act on it, it could mean a lot of inconvenience or it could be too late.

What is equally – if not, more – important than legislation, is a dose of scepticism.

In the latest index, Singapore scored a 88.3, an improvement over previous years but still indicating gender inequality in favour of males. Perfect gender equality would measure 100 points while a score above 100 indicates gender inequality in favour of females.

Two of the four socio-economic indicators for the index are subjective and self-reported by survey respondents.

In these aspects, the results seem to indicate a narrowing gap. About 86 women to every 100 men perceived that they were in the management league; about 98 women to every 100 men perceived they were being paid an above median salary.

Unfortunately, the results don't capture how the respondents' perceptions compare to their actual situation, which would have made for an interesting analysis.

While more women have joined the workforce over the years, women are still under-represented in the top rungs of the corporate ladder.

Flip through the newspaper and you'll see that the CEOs or experts mentioned or quoted are usually men. And I don't think journalists are being sexist in their choice of interviewees, afterall there are more female journalists in the newsroom.

Official figures also show that an income gap still exists.

In Singapore, the median monthly income for full-time employed females is 86 per cent that of fully employed males. While this figure is an improvement as compared to the figure 10 years ago (83 per cent), it's hardly anything to shout about.

It would be too simplistic to attribute the gap to any single factor, such as social conditioning or discrimination. 

Rather, it's a combination and intertwining of factors, including women's reluctance to expect more for themselves. It's probably also less obvious than - though equally damaging as - discrimination.

Anecdotally, I know of a friend who was offered a higher salary than she had asked for when she switched jobs within the same field.

Was the hiring company just being generous? As it turns out, her asking salary had been too low. She later learnt that even with the offered salary, a less experienced, lower-ranking male colleague was earning more than her.

But don't take it from me. 

The book Women Don’t Ask by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever provides some excellent insights and examples: Studies have shown that women in the same position as their male counterparts tend to be contented with lesser pay. 

Women are also less likely to negotiate pay packages than their male counterparts with the same qualifications. 

Which makes you wonder: Is that our form of self-discrimination? After all, if you don't ask, you don't get.

Life is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Read more about the Gender Gap closing in Singapore