Singapore — The Sugarbook website with its “sugar babies” and “sugar daddies” is again in the spotlight, since the Education Ministry (MOE) revealed recently that it is investigating a complaint that a Singapore teacher has been using it. So, what exactly is a “sugar baby”?

The clue lies in Sugarbook’s tagline, “where romance meets finance”, a not-so-subtle hint of the transactional nature of the relationships formed on the site.

But is it, strictly speaking, prostitution? Is sex in exchange for gifts and money always a part of the deal? Or are sugar babies merely dates paid for their company?

Sugarbook had said earlier this year that more than 14,000 sugar babies in Malaysia are university students, their ranks boosted by the pandemic, as more women and girls needed help to cope with the financial fallout of Covid-19.

In February, Malaysia blocked Sugarbook, and its founder, Darren Chan, was arrested for promoting prostitution. He is said to have used a website to publish a post titled “Top 10 Sugar Baby Universities in Malaysia”.

And what about Singapore, where most students are arguably better off financially? What motivates young women here to sign up as “sugar babies”?

 The Straits Times (ST) reported earlier this week that MOE “will not hesitate to take disciplinary action against those who fail to adhere to our standards of conduct and discipline, including dismissal from service”.

As for the teacher who allegedly signed up on Sugarbook, she has since tendered her resignation.

Some of the discussion online has detoured how teachers are paid. “Teachers are overworked and underpaid. Work them less and pay them more, damn it,” commented Facebook user Mohamed Nazri Yusop.

Others disagreed, arguing that teachers here are among the best paid, receiving an average monthly salary of $3,844.

In The Straits Times report, clinical psychologist  Annabelle Chow noted that women here seeking sugar daddies are 23 years old on average and aren’t always in it for the money.

Dr Chow is quoted as saying, “I have seen about five patients who are sugar babies, but they actually come from well-off families and do not need the money.

“But they do this because, at the core, they may have trust issues. They may not have had a healthy relationship with their parents, especially their fathers when they were young. And now, to them, love and relationships are transactional.”

An earlier ST article says that the number of Singaporean women on Sugarbook is “unclear.” 

It notes that the females who register with an email address from an educational institution don’t need to pay the S$18 monthly “premium” membership fee. This was once offered under the tagline “discover the modern way to avoid student loan debt”.

In 2018, it was reported that more than 20,000 from Singapore had signed up on Sugarbook, making Singaporeans the second-biggest group on the site, after Malaysia.

Three out of every 10 users is a sugar daddy, the rest are sugar babies.

A spokesperson for Sugabook said that most of the Singaporeans who signed up are young women aged 19 to 33, including university students.

As to how much sugar babies “earn,” Sugarbook says the women and girls receive $2,500 monthly on average, which excludes lavish gifts such as jewellery, evenings out at fancy restaurants, trips abroad, and other luxury items.

Interestingly, sugar babies who are single mothers receive more financial support for their children.

But is being a sugar baby the same as being a prostitute? Sugarbook’s founder has argued that the site is about empowerment and a representative said the site is “strongly against vice activities,” ST reported that when it created a fake account, would-be sugar daddies immediately offered money for sex or other intimate acts.

Regarding the teacher who was allegedly on Sugarbook, some netizens felt that she was judged more severely because of her profession.

However, many argued that her private life should be kept separate from her professional life.

Others questioned why the man who complained about the teacher had been on the site in the first place.

As far back as 2018, Mr Desmond Lee, then Minister for Social and Family Development, expressed concern over the site, saying that it “undermine(s) families and societies”.

He indicated then that the ministry would not ban the site yet but warned that the police may take enforcement action against those who trade sexual services for payment. /TISG

Read also: Malaysian sugar baby spills trade secrets on Reddit: this is what we learned

TheSugarBook founders claim website is about empowerment after harsh condemnation in Parliament