Commentary: A match made in policy – should the state play cupid?

SINGAPORE: “Are you dating yet? Would you like me to introduce someone to you? I know someone you might like!” “When are you getting married?” “When are you having children?”

These are questions you may have heard from friends or relatives at gatherings. While often well-intentioned, such inquiries can sometimes feel intrusive and pressuring. Now, imagine if the government took on this role.

Late last year, Tokyo launched a government-backed dating app requiring users to prove they’re legally single, commit to marriage, disclose and verify their income, and undergo an admissions interview with the app’s operator.

This initiative is likely part of Japan’s broader strategy to address its plummeting birth rates. In 2023, Japan had twice as many deaths (1.58 million) than births (0.73 million) and Tokyo’s total fertility rate sank below 1.0 for the first time to 0.99. Marriage is on the decline, while the divorce rate is climbing.

Welcome to a modern world where demographic challenges are turning intimate decisions into matters of the state. Getting married and having kids may no longer just be personal choices, but your national duties alongside bureaucratic matchmakers.

How far should governments be intervening in dating lives to promote procreation? More importantly, should they, and do we want them to?

TILL POLICY DO US PART: WHEN GOVERNMENTS PLAY MATCHMAKER

Governments have long shaped marriage and parenthood with pro-natalist policies like tax reliefs, housing priorities and baby bonuses. These are often seen as vital for national goals such as economic and social stability.

State-run matchmaking services have also become an increasingly popular alternative, with countries like China, Taiwan and Russia adopting them to directly help citizens find marriage partners for family formation.

Singapore is no exception. With similarly low marriage and birth rates, the government has supported matchmaking initiatives like the now-dissolved Social Development Network that helped singles meet potential partners via events, speed-dating sessions and interest-based group gatherings.

These programmes have elicited mixed reactions. While some might appreciate the opportunity to meet like-minded individuals in an organised setting, others may view them as invasive and overlooking emotional compatibility in favour of political goals.

Dating apps often emphasise extrinsic traits like physical attributes over more sustainable qualities like shared values or emotional compatibility. This can render government-run apps unappealing as they may seem to prioritise superficial aspects of relationships or traditional dating norms, potentially excluding more meaningful connections built on long-term compatibility.

Tokyo’s dating app, for instance, uses artificial intelligence to match residents based on their values. However, algorithmic biases in matchmaking can unintentionally perpetuate stereotypes, favouring preferences or social markers prevalent in society while overlooking the diversity of other personal characteristics such as religion or socioeconomic status.

Privacy and surveillance concerns are also obstacles to receptivity toward such government initiatives. Even in a society like Singapore’s where residents have a high level of trust in the government, the idea of state intervention in love may be disconcerting to some.

Take 18-year-old Marcus, who is currently single, for example. When asked if he would consider using such platforms, he hesitated. “If it’s owned by the government, definitely no. It feels as if they’re watching over you,” he told me. “Actually, any dating app would make me feel weird. I don’t know what the other person’s past is or what their intentions are, if they’re in it for the short- or long-term.”

DATING TO MARRY: “GREAT FOR LOYALTY, BUT GETS BORING”

Commercial dating apps have reshaped the modern dating landscape, offering convenience and quick connections that cater to those seeking more casual and spontaneous interactions.

While these platforms can help expand social network, they potentially set norms that aren’t conducive to facilitating deeper relationships. By emphasising instant matches and fast-paced interactions, they could risk trivialising the courtship process, leaving less room for relationships to blossom naturally over time.

With state-run dating apps, there is a more structured and intentional approach of encouraging relationships with long-term potential. The supposed goal isn’t to control who people date, but to provide opportunities for singles serious about getting married and having children to meet in ways that align with societal expectations.

Perhaps therein lies the biggest issue: It can feel more like a government-controlled matchmaking experiment than a genuine effort to help people form meaningful personal connections.

It carries an implicit expectation that citizens should contribute to the nation’s population growth. This can make family formation feel more like a societal duty than a private choice, particularly for those in their late 20s and early 30s. It might also unintentionally create stress or feelings of inadequacy among those who remain single, unmarried, or childless. 

Youths today may not be searching for a life partner, but rather enjoying the experience of meeting new people and being “happily self-partnered” (a term popularised by actress Emma Watson). For those in their 20s, singlehood is often a time for exploration and personal growth, with no immediate pressure to get married.

“I eventually want to marry and have kids, but it’s not something I’m actively thinking about now. [A state-owned dating app] would be great for loyalty but gets boring. I just want to make friends and get to know people, but the first connection shouldn’t be through an app,” Marcus told me.

BEYOND THE REGISTRY: PRIORITISING HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS

If the goal is simply marriage and procreation, governments may miss the mark by overlooking individual complexities. Policies ostensibly designed to assist families can inadvertently alienate singles in a culture that places immense value on family life. Efforts to create a more inclusive environment for singles may thus be undermined.

Ideally, the government’s role should be one of support: Providing equal opportunities for individuals to choose their own paths rather than trying to dictate or incentivise personal choices. Even with successful matchmaking and marriage, individuals retain the freedom to decide if and when they wish to have children, as seen with the rising number of DINKs (Dual Income, No Kids).

A government-run app that matches people based on social norms and superficial criteria may not address the underlying issue – the need for true autonomy. By refocusing on this and fostering inclusive environments for all kinds of relationships, it could encourage a more organic progression toward love. This might be more beneficial in promoting personal fulfilment and helping individuals forge stronger, healthier connections.

The real challenge now is expanding opportunities for authentic, safe connections within broader social circles. This includes creating spaces where people can form genuine relationships – whether friendships, romantic partnerships, or familial bonds – without feeling societal pressure to conform to traditional norms.

Ultimately, relationships, dating and family-building are deeply intimate decisions that should lie with individuals, and no one should be forced into predefined roles.

Tricia Tok is a staff at Singapore Management University’s Office of Dean of Students.