好的a, 好的
关于b,
我觉得每个人结婚的时候应该都是想长久的，要说会恶意隐匿财产比如转移之类，也就是闹离婚的时候或一方有准备地设计离婚的时候才才会干这事。那回溯期规定多久应该也会影响到权益吧，有最长回溯期限制吗？
第二条，赡养父母是子女的责任和义务。不知道新加坡法律是如何区别和判定多少是这部分支出的合理水平。对于独生子女或有异地患病父母的子女来说，应该还是和有兄弟姐妹的人支出数额不同吧？这部分支出多就能断定对“自己的家”没什么贡献么？毕竟贡献还包括亲自照顾家庭等等其他形式。
没有抬杠的意思，就是既然想到了就问清楚。以前从来没看懂过版上关于财产分割的帖子，好不容易有点概念就多问问。还得感谢版主的耐心，帮我扫了盲。
答案找到了
这条法律要求的是两点：
1. 财产有增值
2. 增值来自于“婚姻中对方或者双方的共同贡献”
关于什么是实质性增值，这是一个事实问题。并不是说1%就不算增值，5%就算增值，要具体事情具体分析。实践中，很少有人在法庭上争这种事情。争多了法官对你产生坏的印象你就悲剧了。
于是更多的争议来自于婚姻中对方或者双方是否对这种增值做出了贡献。
在新加坡的案子里面，主要的争议财产有两种
1. 房屋
2. 家族企业股份
在新加坡有一个案子Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat [1996] 1 SLR(R) 906 就同时提到这两种财产。
在这个案件中，关于房产，房产装修是男方父亲付的钱。女方提出她参与了概念设计，也做各种家务简介贡献。但是法官认为这些所谓贡献即使放在一起也是微不足道的（de minimis），因为女方其实不做家务，家务由男方雇佣的女佣完成。所以法官判定房屋不属于婚内财产。
关于公司，法官承认女方有贡献，但是认为这种贡献很难用金钱衡量。上诉法官认为原诉法官做出的女方获得10000元的估值并无不妥。
=========题外话==========
真不是我要黑中国人。你们自己想象一下新加坡普通民众要是读了这种判决，会对中国女性造成怎样的一种刻板印象：
The wife is a Chinese national who has since November 1990 been a permanent resident of Singapore. Her parents are researchers at a social science academy in Beijing. The wife and the husband first met in Beijing in July 1987. At that time, the husband was studying in the United States of America. The wife was a tour guide, working with a state travel organisation. In the course of the next two and a half years, they kept in touch with each other over the telephone, and during his university vacations, the husband visited the wife in Beijing.
Eventually the parties were married in February 1990 in Beijing. In June 1990, the husband brought the wife to Singapore. They stayed at the house 15, Jalan Pelepah, which is a semi-detached house situate at the rear of 19, Jalan Pelepah where the husband’s parents live.
...
The judge formed the impression that she was more keen on gaining a foothold in the family business and wealth than on being a wife.
=======分割线结束==========
1. 财产有增值
2. 增值来自于“婚姻中对方或者双方的共同贡献”
关于什么是实质性增值，这是一个事实问题。并不是说1%就不算增值，5%就算增值，要具体事情具体分析。实践中，很少有人在法庭上争这种事情。争多了法官对你产生坏的印象你就悲剧了。
于是更多的争议来自于婚姻中对方或者双方是否对这种增值做出了贡献。
在新加坡的案子里面，主要的争议财产有两种
1. 房屋
2. 家族企业股份
在新加坡有一个案子Shi Fang v Koh Pee Huat [1996] 1 SLR(R) 906 就同时提到这两种财产。
在这个案件中，关于房产，房产装修是男方父亲付的钱。女方提出她参与了概念设计，也做各种家务简介贡献。但是法官认为这些所谓贡献即使放在一起也是微不足道的（de minimis），因为女方其实不做家务，家务由男方雇佣的女佣完成。所以法官判定房屋不属于婚内财产。
关于公司，法官承认女方有贡献，但是认为这种贡献很难用金钱衡量。上诉法官认为原诉法官做出的女方获得10000元的估值并无不妥。
=========题外话==========
真不是我要黑中国人。你们自己想象一下新加坡普通民众要是读了这种判决，会对中国女性造成怎样的一种刻板印象：
The wife is a Chinese national who has since November 1990 been a permanent resident of Singapore. Her parents are researchers at a social science academy in Beijing. The wife and the husband first met in Beijing in July 1987. At that time, the husband was studying in the United States of America. The wife was a tour guide, working with a state travel organisation. In the course of the next two and a half years, they kept in touch with each other over the telephone, and during his university vacations, the husband visited the wife in Beijing.
Eventually the parties were married in February 1990 in Beijing. In June 1990, the husband brought the wife to Singapore. They stayed at the house 15, Jalan Pelepah, which is a semi-detached house situate at the rear of 19, Jalan Pelepah where the husband’s parents live.
...
The judge formed the impression that she was more keen on gaining a foothold in the family business and wealth than on being a wife.
=======分割线结束==========
Huasing Association 1999 - 2013