THE total fertility rate in Singapore dropped to 1.16 last year, way below the replacement level of 2.1 ("Fertility figures hit all-time low"; Tuesday).
The decline in fertility rate has been observed for more than two decades. The Government had implemented many measures in past years aimed at increasing the fertility rate, but these have failed.
The Government has now opened its doors to immigration to increase the population and compensate for the low birth rate. While this is necessary in the short term, we need to find a better solution to produce more babies and raise them here.
The key reasons behind the low birth rate, based on public feedback, are the cost and stress of raising children, the long working hours and financial insecurity felt by many families due to the uncertainty of jobs, and the cost of living.
I suggest the following measures to address the concerns:
- Each family, comprising both parents who are Singapore citizens, should be allowed to raise two children with the cost largely borne by the State.
- The cost should include delivery of babies, nursing care, childcare and schooling fees, and medical expenses of the child.
- The mother should be given an adequate allowance if she has to stop working to look after the child, until the child goes to school.
The system can replace the generous parenthood tax rebates that are now given out. As the previous approach has failed to produce the intended results, we should now try a new approach, in the long-term interest of our country.
Tan Kin Lian
22 comments:
The downward trend of birth rate is a result of
1. Those who are in the higher age group who are late for marriage, decided not to get married or not having children.
2. Those who are in the younger age group are still locked into making a living and yet not enough to get married, buy a flat nor got time to pursue their prospective spouse.
The PAP government overemphasis on economy has done a lot more harm to our family units. The Woman Charter is the worst legislation which discriminate against the males. Should be replaced by Family Charter instead. There is no use in amending and amending the Woman Charter for it is structurally outdated.
In the past, family can have larger family is because father provide and mother take care of household chores. The scoiety has regressed so much that now family needs two income in order to balance the family budget. On top of that, if the family have sick parents (yes, more than one), it would further add burden to the family (in term of time and money. The stress and problem are real and has nothing to do with filial piety).
Most of the youngsters know they are going to face the above problems so the easiest way out is not to have kids or marry.
This is the price that we have to pay when the country is run by leaders who are more interested in their own personal rewards rather than the national interest. If the same trend goes on for another 20-30 years, Singapore will become a nation without soul.
We are now dealing with the consequences of "Stop At 2" policy.
Since child bearing is seen as a form of "national service", the govt should share the responsibility of bring up children as they are the country's asset.
As Mr Tan suggested, the govt should adsorb most of the cost and expenses or at least provide heavy subsidies to naturalise Singaporeans.
Also, from the social angle, policies should be implemented to accord recognisation and status to families with children. Example, priority queue at cinemas, restaurants,places of interest, etc etc....basically making Singapore a very child friendly environment.
Intangilble perks like these will encourage young couples to have children as they are elevated to a higher social hierachy over childless couples.
Have seen many fathers being retrenched, and the family being thrown into chaos. Think the fundamental reason being no job security is the main culprit.
Also the costs of maintaining parents who have high medical costs
also counts, so no children the choice.
"The mother should be given an adequate allowance if she has to stop working to look after the child, until the child goes to school. "
Germany is offering some allowance to mothers (maternity benefit), and we also added support for fathers (so that they can spend some more time with the family, or that they can take care of the children instead of the mother). However, in the short time (since it was implemented), there were no huge improvements (if any at all), the birth rate is still low.
See for example:
http://berlin.angloinfo.com/countries/germany/socsecurity.asp#Maternity benefits
"Parental benefit (Elternzeit): Parents are entitled to up to 14 months of paid time off taken between the two parents (or 12 months if just one parents takes it). The parent(s) are paid up to 67 percent of their salary;"
Probably need a drastic change in govt before the suggestions are even considered, let alone implemented.
The current govt doesn't mind giving the $20K tax rebates and the 1-for-1 top up of the kids education fund, becoz these can only be really utilised by the higher middle-income and the rich. Most of those families in the bottom 60% do not earn enough to fully enjoy the current "incentives".
And LKY's reasoning of getting more younger foreigners to reap the benefits of their 2nd generation is quite puzzling, in the face of the 2010 Census which found that PRs and new citizens are actually having even lower fertility than native citizens. In high cost, high competition and high pressure Singapore, even foreigners quickly recognise that they cannot have many kids or even have any kids at all.
even without fancy changes. If the government awards the current quantum on child bearing in CASH, rather than rebates. I think it would already make a big difference. The current schemes just simply don't work.
To claim for these rebates, $-for-$ match, the richer parents aren't as motivated by the $, and the poorer ones cannot utilise them.
Actually, it is because women of education choose to work instead of having babies.
A good suggestion but monetary incentives and social supporting measures alone may not solve the problems. Despite all proactive and attractive policy measures introduced in Scandinavian countries for the past decade, the total fertility rates for Denmark in 2009 was 1.74 children per woman, 1.67 for Sweden and 1.73 for Finland.
Perhaps, the cultural mindset in managing ones' expectation and proper financial budgeting play a very important part in achieving the desired results in this area.
For sharing purposes only. My wife has come from a family of eleven(11) - a soccer team. My father-in-law was a Taxi Driver and my mother-in-law was a simple housewife. However, their children had been given enough food and adequate education based on the standards set during those difficult years of Singapore.
If the government implements my suggestion, I believe that many young people may be willing to start a family early, when they are young - if they do not have to worry about the cost of raising the children.
Some mothers may be willing to stop work to look after the children. They can return to the work force after their children starts school.
It is easier for a woman to have children when she is in her twenties, rather than the late thirties.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with many of the posters. The entire population policy is flawed and unsustainable in the long term. Why is sg so obsessed with increasing its population? Isn't 5.5 mil enough? How many do we want? By which year?
Many other countries are also obsessed with increasing pop. Even countries with large pop want even more. The world already has 6.5 b ppl and the figure is increasing rapidly. The main argument put up by these govts is that "we need more young ppl to support the increasing nbr of old ppl". That is if we now have 1 mil old ppl, we need say 1.2 mil young ppl to support them. In 50 yrs time we will have 1.2 mil old ppl. So to support them we will need 1.44 mil young ppl, and so on. This is a geometric progression and the pop will increase exponentially. Does this fragile world need this? Can this vulnerable world sustain such merciless demands on its limited resources. Think about it.
Some argue that the govt should bear the cost of children. How will it do it? Increase taxes? Are we prepared to pay 20% GST? Are sg employers prepared to give maternity/paternity leave of 1yr? Even if they do (by way of govt legislation), you can bet that all costs will skyrocket. Ask yourself - Is this what we want?
Child bearing is a personal thing. It has nothing to do with the govt. It is definitely not a form of "national service" as some posters have suggested. Look back at your parents and grandparents time. They had children because they liked children, not because there were incentives. Do not blame pressure of work, high cost of living, no social time etc for not having children. If you have the time, the love and can afford it, have them. If not, then don't. It's as simple as that.
The world needs a 1-time correction on population. The bubble is growing and needs to burst. After that, nature will somehow have a way to rectify all the excesses in this world.
My apologies if I sound curt on this matter. I have expressed my views on this matter in this blog before.
The more foreigners we let in in a hurry to make up for the shortfall in Singaporean babies, the more inflated home prices will be and the more cut throat competition there will be at work. These will lead to Singaporean getting married later and having less babies.
The gov wants to have their cake & eat it.
Economy is # 1 at all costs.
It does not matter who is involved:
Singaporeans or imported talent.
As long as it runs and it runs at higher GDP than before.
This is considered "Good" for the island state.
Really?
Then, who are we?
A collection of biological mass that knows how to earn a living? knows the percentages of profits, knows how to build more buildings?
more systems?
What defines us?
Char kway teow & Hokkien mee & chicken rice?
While I have my reservations on Mr Tan's suggestion of having the state to subsidise the kids, I think the money is put to better use here than having TH and GIC losing the money in the billions like nobody business without accountability.
I completely agree with Mr Tan's suggestions. Being a father raising a newborn baby in London (supposingly a very expensive city), i notice prices of essential items are so much cheaper in unit costs. Formula milk is 4 times cheaper, milk bottles 2-3 times cheaper, nappies 2 times cheaper etc etc. So for someone doing the same job in London and Spore, the one in London would have lower costs of raising children. That perhaps is another problem of keeping our wages down to attract jobs from overseas. Add to that the culture of long working hours and work life imbalance in Spore, it really isnt that practical to have kids. The Western society and culture is generally more tolerant and accepting of the needs of parents both at work and everyday life.
However to implement Mr Tan's suggestions, the country would have to set aside a huge budget (probably akin to welfare to some) which the current government doesnt really look like supporting, although we do need some really daring policy to reverse the situation. Whats the use of being such a rich country when there is no real citizens?
@V S Lingam, you raised a son for 18 years and the govt take away 2 years of his life to serve the country.
If that is not "national service", i dont what you call it.
So, no children, no nationl service, simple. Just pay the Gurkhas to defend all the million-dollar arm chair scholar ministers.
And if child bearing is a personal thing and has nothing to do with the govt as you said, than please explain why the "Stop at 2" policy where couples get fined for having 3rd child onwards? Can the govt intervene population growth like that? Is that their business?
If its not govt business, why China have 1 child policy? Who is the govt to tell its people how many children they can have or need to have?
It is every govt's business to ensure that their countries population is sustainable.
Every king & ruler since the existence of mankind understand this fundamental concept that to survive and be strong as a tribe or nation, you must have enough of your own people.
Not the govt's business? You must be joking!
A govt has its agenda. A citizen has his agenda. When the two coincide, its beautiful.
@VS Lingam,
Think twice before you make such harsh statements. Today's stresses and costs of maintaining a family is not like the days of yesteryears, when grandparents take on the roles of childcare FOR FREE.
Before you talk about making young parents SUFFER the costs of raising children, think about how it may boomerang back and hit you. What happens if your own sons or daughters say they don't want any children because of the cost issue? Then you would be denied the joys of being a grandparent.
Mr Tan's proposal is called WORKFARE (not welfare). And it also boosts productivity many times over.
In the past 2 grandparents would stay home to look after one child FOR FREE.
Under Mr Tan's proposal, the state pays them decent salary to look after another 9 children (so that their own grandparents can go out to earn a living). Isn't this increasing productivity? Isn't this workfare??
REX comments as follows,
a famous politician in singapore said that it is impractical to give too much money to lessen the expenses of couples so they feel less stressed to have more kids. What he said basically was that the state has not enough money to do that kind of thing. Really?
If the country can afford to throw away millions of dollars in salaries feeding an oversized political machinery (you understand) and as well, accumulate reserves to pay the pensions of same motley gang of redundant duds, is it asking too much to divert the money to places which are in more dire need?
If the govt collects billions of dollars in casino taxes, why isnt the money enough?
Right now, one pressing issue is the hiring of maids to take care of baby. This is very real problem. Why must we pay tax of $180 to govt for hiring foreign maid? To curb foreingers in singapore? Must be joking, govt already encourage foreigners. What does the govt lose if it ABOLISH totally the foreign maid levy? nothing much right?
Just do it, why dont they, instead of procrastinating and pretending that the whole issue of low fertility is the citizen's problem (that was the nuance conveyed in the mainstream media)
rex
Will someone good with numbers calculate how much tax the government gets from placing a foreigner here vs a citizen bringing up a child from conception to revenue generating digit at say age 25?
What if the benefits (in money terms) now given to foreign imports were to be offered to locals as baby bonus?
Over the coming decades would the newcomers under our high cost environment end up repeating the local fertility rate, resulting in an even greater flood of old people?
Does a bigger population benefit all or only a sliver at the top?
Someone who can count, please help.
Post a Comment