Investing in Singaporean Babies & the Country's long term future

Sounds like what Erich Fromm said, "To have or To Be". Society, not just in Singapore, stresses too much of to have, while to be is slowly being forgotten.

[video=youtube;o7GpHrdXOFI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7GpHrdXOFI[/video]

Checker said:

It's the law of nature to compete. Animals show off how fit and strong they are in many ways, just as humans do. In a very densely populated SG, it's worse since everybody is so close by and everyone knows everyone else. If you don't keep up materially, you will feel terrible. The pain of being looked down on is not different from physical pain. If one is not even that sure of one's fitness to survive long-term, to pay for home, education, healthcare, children are a big burden.

There're probably ways to reduce the materialism. But I think they're long-term and may have to start with people valuing other achievements highly, not just money. Political office, arts & cultural achievements, intellectual contributions, need to be celebrated not for money they bring in, for example. But the highest political offices are still about money, so that sets the tone for celebrating materialism down the stream. Everybody then strives for that definition of "success" (except for a few outliers mentioned in this forum).

Click to expand...

As someone already mentioned, it's not really money, since in Singapore, most of the sorely pressed middle class is still relatively okay. It is largely about stress. Or what our personal expectations and societal expectations levy on us. If people do not see any future for themselves, do you think they will bother to bring children into the equation?

There are many problems with our current infrastructure - both physical and organisational - that would probably be laid full for everyone to see in the next decade or so. I have no faith in the current or future possible PAP leadership to do the right thing since they have been spending years papering the cracks with toilet paper and thinking everything is okay.

As much as I'd like to bash the PAP with this one, I have to admit that it is a world wide issue among the developed nations. It's the developing and underdeveloped countries that still have high birth rates. I agree it has to do with the free and easy lifestyle, unfettered by family and children and relationships, and not just money no enough.

I suppose people must feel unpressured, relaxed and unstressed enough to first enjoy their first few years of a new career, travel around, have their own space, before getting tired of all that wanderlust and meaninglessness, and settling on finding a mate and starting a family. Even then, the choice is whether to have one , two or more. So it is indeed a complex issue.

But for Singapore, a dire spectre is haunting Singapore. If sinkies dont multiply fast enough, we'll be extinct species in no time, and overrun by Indians, Pinoys, Myanmese and strange people who talk with strange sounds.

Simbian said:

As someone already mentioned, it's not really money, since in Singapore, most of the sorely pressed middle class is still relatively okay. It is largely about stress. Or what our personal expectations and societal expectations levy on us. If people do not see any future for themselves, do you think they will bother to bring children into the equation?

There are many problems with our current infrastructure - both physical and organisational - that would probably be laid full for everyone to see in the next decade or so. I have no faith in the current or future possible PAP leadership to do the right thing since they have been spending years papering the cracks with toilet paper and thinking everything is okay.

Click to expand...

If the family, paternal/maternal instincts are not there in a person, mere change of location isnt going to make a difference. I do concede however that a serene, relaxed, pleasant environment and culture may work its charms on those aforementioned instincts and finally produce the desired results. Then it'll only mean that unless Singapore can change to a baby-friendly environment, the gains will be somewhere else in Canada, Australia or NZ which already have such greener pastures are, and the loss will be S'pore's.

But having said that, we also dont see Canadians, Aussies etc NOT having the same problem of low birthrates!!??

scroobal said:

Its takes two to clap. I am not apportioning all the blame on the PAP. That is why I have spent most of my focus in the early years persuading people to leave the country and make a new life in a 1st world country if not for them then at least for their children.

If the mountain can't make it to Mohd then Mohd has to head to the mountains.

Unfortunately not everyone has the smarts or the ability to leave. Some are stranded because of their elderly parents. Others are waiting for the PAP to shine the torchlight to show the way. Life is such.

Click to expand...

to say entirely that money does not solve this problem is not entirely correct. if the government pays say, 500K for each child - bank into his CDA to be used by him up till he finishes university (21 yo max) - would it not be an attractive option? Thats like 2K a month.

but of course, I am talking cock here, because the government won't.

but suppose the government will - will we see a bumper crop of babies?

but how do we ensure only those who are supposed to give birth do so and those who cannot afford shldn't do so? Thats quite difficult, because you cannot be seen to be favoring certain group / race up front, it won't work in our society.

to say high cost is a hindrance to birth rates is not correct - Sweden / Norway / France all have high costs of living but their birth rates are much higher - to extent MCYS fly there to study their policies.

its the culture here and in larger part Asia - low tolerance to failures / success measured by money. In fact, society firsts gives no chance to failures / bankrupts. Spur everyone to fight for paper qualifications, monetary rewards.

and there's another equation for government to solve, based on my understanding, there are 3 groups:

- married couples with kids generally have one to two - but struggling with daily expenses, worried about stressful environment for their kids
- married couples trying hard to have kids - coupled with fact that many are marrying older, the window for a woman to have kids is more restricted and for many reasons, many are barren.
-singles - - this is the largest worry - if one don't get married - give you 1m for a baby is also difficult.

Once I asked my friend in spg, why he don't want to have children. He replied "Why bring them into this world to suffer".:(

Then I asked an American in the states, why he wants to have children, he replied "So that they can make this world better".

Char_Azn said:

Totally disagree. U are still assuming money is the main issue here. U just talk about more money incentives. It's not. It's the change in culture and thinking that is the issue. .............

Click to expand...

Ash007 said:

Sounds like what Erich Fromm said, "To have or To Be". Society, not just in Singapore, stresses too much of to have, while to be is slowly being forgotten.

Click to expand...

Indeed, unlike in many other Western countries, the proportion of people aspiring "to be" may be quite low in SG. It's a problem coming from our dense population (where one will very quickly see and feel your neighbours wealth relative to yours). Our politician role models, let alone the media/ celebrities, celebrate what money they have. They're so well paid and well known to be highest paid that they don't even need to wear fancy clothes to show off... such "modesty" may only spur more people to work harder to get more. Any animal under stress and pressure will not readily reproduce.

kingrant said:

But having said that, we also dont see Canadians, Aussies etc NOT having the same problem of low birthrates!!??

Click to expand...

Magic replacement number for fertility rate is 2.1

Canada - 1.53
Australia - 1.79

Source from wikipedia

Both still below the replacement rate needed to sustain their population. In any case both are pretty open migrant countries, not a major issue

We have to factor in 1 very important thing. Countries with huge rural areas are more likely to have higher fertility rate. Every country in the world face the same issue, the city dwellers generally have less babies then pple living in rural area and if anyone havent notice already SG is 1 very big city!!!!!

I guess at the end of the day, it's all right to open up to have more migrants when:

1. we are already not replacing, dont have children anyway who stand to lose
2. the migrants come in only AFTER we have retired, so they keep the economy going, pay taxes and support us.
3. the govt brings in only young turks not oldies to compete for support networks

Nah, I think still got hope but the authorities and it looks like most pple who are not in that situation right now are misreading the whole thing very poorly. Whatever Money U throw at them, will only bump up the numbers slightly, it doesn't address the core issue. If the work life issue and money is really the solution, NONE of the advance countries would be facing the same problem yet even Scroobal's own example of countries like Australia is still below ideal fertility rate.

I think the key to all of this is to make pple realize why starting a family > material wealth or personal space. My generation and I'm pretty sure the next gen is a gone case, too late to save. The authorities should start looking at the ones who can still change, the kids. Start bombarding them with ideas of family life, children, getting married, etc. That might work.

migrant said:

But some people are just too fat And ugly. How to find girlfriend? If no girlfriend how to make babies. No amount of $ can help lah.

Click to expand...

Who's that in your avatar? You? No offence bro but you are really fat and ugly. :(

migrant said:

no offence at all. this guy is really fat and ugly.

i have no idea who he is. i google fat ugly pap dog and this guy's pic came out.

Click to expand...

Oh interesting. I wonder who this pap dog is. Ugly on the inside, ugly on the outside

I made a quick calculation. A scheme like that will cost around 2billion every year. This will be on top of all the subsidies to child care and education.
Not sustainable in the long run. Perhaps a lower figure would make more sense.

Kinana said:

Not sustainable in the long run. Perhaps a lower figure would make more sense.

Click to expand...

You seem to have fantastic financial acumen too. Great work for doing the math. Points for you.

Leongsam said:

Immigration isn't just about numbers. It's about upgrading the gene pool.

Click to expand...

Replacing and upgrading. The old should make way for the young