• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Complex problem of low birth rate requires more than just throwing money at it

NgEjay

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
In his National Day Rally speech on 17 Aug, PM Lee spent a considerable amount of time addressing the issue of Singapore’s low birth rate and the measures proposed to alleviate the problem.

As is becoming the usual PAP practice, PM Lee proposed to throw money at the problem — $1.6 billion spent a year or 0.6% of GDP, to be more precise. This includes the $700 million per year required to fund two new initiatives mentioned during the Rally itself: providing financial support to lower the cost of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), and extending most of the incentives like tax reliefs, childcare subsidies, and so on, to the fifth and the subsequent child.

DPM Wong Kan Seng gave more details on the new measures on Wednesday, which include:

  • Tax relief: for example, child tax relief for parents will extend beyond the fourth child. Also, for each child, parents can claim for $4,000, instead of $2,000. The tax relief for a handicapped child has also gone up to $5,500, from $3,500.
  • Bigger baby bonus: $4,000 for first and second child instead of $3,000
  • More paid maternity leave: Paid maternity leave will go up from 12 to 16 weeks for mothers of Singaporean children born from Jan 1 next year.
  • Greater protection for pregnant women: They will get maternity leave benefits, if fired without good cause within the last six months of pregnancy. These benefits will also be given if she is laid off in the last three months of her pregnancy.
  • Co-funding of in-vitro fertilisation treatment: the Government will from next month co-pay fertility treatments for women under age 40 but the treatment must be at public hospitals. Couples can receive 50 per cent funding - up to $3,000 - for each cycle of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatments, for a maximum of three cycles.
  • Increased subsidies at childcare and infantcare centres: working mothers will get double the amount of monthly subsidies at childcare centres, from $150 to $300. At infantcare centres, their subsidies will also go up, from $400 to $600 a month.
However, the highly complex problem of low birth rates is going to need much more than just the Government throwing money at it.

Two Straits Times forum letters raise the non-monetary aspects of the issue. For example, in the letter entitled “Tackle the problem, not the symptoms” published on 20 Aug, Mr Thomas Ling wondered aloud if the Government was “barking up the wrong tree regarding the issue of our falling population”.

He said: “Our pursuit of economic excellence and rewards in the past 40 years has resulted in a new breed of young Singaporeans who hold different values about life”.

I agree with him. Nowadays, Singaporeans are more individualistic and materialistic, no thanks in part to the rapidly increasing cost of living, over-crowding, the decrease in personal space, and the fast paced of life. And this is a global phenomenon, prevalent in the developed world. Look at Japan, for instance.

Thomas Ling said: “While much of the blame has been pinned on our ‘Stop At Two’ policy in the 70s, the truth has to do with changing lifestyles rather than the success of that policy.”

My take is that the ‘Stop At Two’ policy was shortsighted. It was not just a successful policy, but one that overshot its intended target. As a result, the decline in Singapore’s birth rate has been artificially accelerated over the years, and now the Government imports vast numbers of foreign talents in an attempt to make up the numbers.

Thomas Ling also said: “While monetary incentives help in some way towards boosting the birth rate, its effectiveness is suspect because the underlying problem is the changed attitude towards marriage and family life.” I fully agree with this.

And I would add that the Government’s singular focus on economic progress without adequate attention paid to nurturing a more open society, and a society that pays attention to the intangibles in life such as culture, values, and a community spirit, is also to blame for the current state of affairs.

The issue of low birth rates is a personal, social, and community issue as much as it is a monetary issue. The Government should realize that merely throwing money at the problem is akin to treating the symptoms but not the underlying causes.

The ST letter entitled “Growing up in Singapore - Is it the right place” written by Mrs Eileen Aung-Thwin and published on 20 Aug addresses another concern: Are Singaporeans’ poor social graces making this country an unconducive place for children to grow up in?

Eileen Aung-Thwin cites the example of a letter written recently from a young undergraduate who asked for her future employer not to saddle her with “grunt work” which should be left to her secretary, whom she expects to come with her first job.

Eileen Aung-Thwin says, “The sense of entitlement and selfishness demonstrated by that young woman may have been extreme but I do think that the attitude is commonplace.”

She also asks, “… parents play a big part in how children turn out, but we cannot underestimate external factors such as society’s influence, peer pressure and the education system. While our education system helps students excel in academics, what sort of values does it promote?”

I think Eileen Aung-Thwin’s concerns are very legitimate. Some parents might be deterred from raising children in a country where social graces and values are lacking. This problem, again, cannot be solved by merely throwing money at potential child-rearing couples. It goes back to the root of how our society is governed and how our young are educated.

In its singular pursuit of material gain, the PAP Government has neglected all these intangibles, and now they are coming back to haunt us.

On a more down-to-earth front, I am also concerned that the needs of employers are not being adequately looked into. Employers are expected to give more benefits and more rights to working mothers, but has the Government considered the burden they may be carrying as a result?

For example, what criteria would the Government use to assess whether an employer has fired a pregnant woman “for no good reason”? Such criteria must invariably be subjective. How would an external party determine whether the retrenchment of a pregnant employee was due to genuine discrimination, or due to other factors that are not the fault of the employer such as poor work attitude on the part of the lady employee?

While the Government’s recommendation that working mums be treated fairly at the workplace is admirable, one wonders if employers would invariably be given the short end of the stick.

The Government should realize that bureaucratic decision made at the top, while sounding noble, often filter down to unfair and unjust practices at the bottom.

The issue of discrimination at the workplace is itself a highly complex one. For example, discrimination against pregnant women can be more subtle than outrightly retrenching them, for instance, being shunned by friends or being given unfair poor annual appraisals by their immediate supervisors. This tangled web of workplace discrimination cannot be simply legislated away.

In short, Singapore’s chronic problem of low birth rates is not unique, but experienced in many developed nations as well. The Government has decided to throw a lot of money at it, but what is needed is a far more holistic approach that takes into account the various intangibles in life.
 

Erudio

Alfrescian
Loyal
"Complex problem of low birth rate requires more than just throwing money at it"

indeed indeed bro ... lemme say oso tt the gov tell peasant not to ask fer salary hike to avoid inflation chase wage spiral ....

but by giving more n more $$ to promote birth, it's oso create a inflation of gov goody chase more babies spiral ...
 

yinyang

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Not really. People do take to tangibles (ie tax breaks, child care and other incentives) -akin to medication to some ailment. More than just airy fairy or grandiose schemes. Talk's cheap, but show the populace the colour of money too... aka get real. And we do need labour (oops sorry, pun unintended) legislation, as few in private sector has mission statement to do national service.

No guarantee they work, but it's some start to long journey. Boils down to personal choice eventually
 

DerekLeung

Alfrescian
Loyal
What the fark is $4000 ? Buying a dog !

If I do not see 200K per child is a farking waste of time excisize by the government again.
 

peasantJUDGE

Alfrescian
Loyal
The great baby booster package benefits the Malay community the most. I doubt, even with these "generous" new monetary boosters, the Chinese will suddenly start having 5 kids.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
To be fair to LHL (if I heard him correctly at NDR08') he did seem to suggest that this was a complex and intractable issue and there were no easy fast solutions. He also seemed to suggest that $$$ alone was not the answer but what was in fact critical was a mindset change reconstruct of Singaporeans attitude towards family life (all stakeholders:individuals -male and female; family; employers; government), to find their own balance between family and work. Once again the devil is in the details as to how to effectively and successfully implement such a paradigm shift.

On the PAP government's side, I think it would do well for it to come out publicly to admit that it made a mistake in ruthlessly and impassionately executing the "Stop at 2" policy in the 70s-80s, which has to some extent brought about this situation, even though this is largely an 'affluent/libertarianian disease'. Why? Because hopefully in future PAP would consider more carefully when executing such draconian social policies (or any other national policies for that matter) that may have serious ramifications for future generations. Put on the 'brakes' and make a quick U-turn.

In his National Day Rally speech on 17 Aug, PM Lee spent a considerable amount of time addressing the issue of Singapore’s low birth rate and the measures proposed to alleviate the problem.


In short, Singapore’s chronic problem of low birth rates is not unique, but experienced in many developed nations as well. The Government has decided to throw a lot of money at it, but what is needed is a far more holistic approach that takes into account the various intangibles in life.
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
... He also seemed to suggest that $$$ alone was not the answer but what was in fact critical was a mindset change reconstruct of Singaporeans attitude towards family life (all stakeholders:individuals -male and female; family; employers; government), to find their own balance between family and work ...

what a joke... seen a culture with limited amount of nutrients in that conical flask? the exponential phase is just about over, baby... :biggrin:
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
Seriously though, what do you want the PAP government to do on this critical long term issue? I acknowledge PAPs approach appears somewhat cold, clinical and calculative which is par for the course with the PAPs who are control freaks afterall, so what is/are the alternative(s)? The devil is in the details as always.

what a joke... seen a culture with limited amount of nutrients in that conical flask? the exponential phase is just about over, baby... :biggrin:
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
On the PAP government's side, I think it would do well for it to come out publicly to admit that it made a mistake in ruthlessly and impassionately executing the "Stop at 2" policy in the 70s-80s, which has to some extent brought about this situation, even though this is largely an 'affluent/libertarianian disease'. Why? Because hopefully in future PAP would consider more carefully when executing such draconian social policies (or any other national policies for that matter) that may have serious ramifications for future generations. Put on the 'brakes' and make a quick U-turn.

Clap!, clap!, clap!:wink: well said!, but they have never ever admited their mistakes, how about the one telling the graduates to marry graduates????

The policy at those time, to restrict the population to stop at 2 was some form of social engineering, which section of the composition of race, it was aiming at, need not to be said; but this policy had backfired.

Everyone of us here in Singapore knows, how stressful it is to raise a child here...from the seconds the child is born, it is some form of 'hell' from that moment...to getting help to look after the baby, later getting into childcare, later into schools....and not adding other factors.

Raising one child....will drain any person dry, financially, emotionally......

Throwing money at the problem is not the solution, it is like treating the symptons without finding out what causes the diease.

Who is that diease, one do not need to guess!:wink: , just treat the diease, the problem of normal pro-creation without a stressful life will follow!!:biggrin:
 

congo9

Alfrescian
Loyal
In his National Day Rally speech on 17 Aug, PM Lee spent a considerable amount of time addressing the issue of Singapore’s low birth rate and the measures proposed to alleviate the problem.

As is becoming the usual PAP practice, PM Lee proposed to throw money at the problem — $1.6 billion spent a year or 0.6% of GDP, to be more precise. This includes the $700 million per year required to fund two new initiatives mentioned during the Rally itself: providing financial support to lower the cost of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), and extending most of the incentives like tax reliefs, childcare subsidies, and so on, to the fifth and the subsequent child.

DPM Wong Kan Seng gave more details on the new measures on Wednesday, which include:

  • Tax relief: for example, child tax relief for parents will extend beyond the fourth child. Also, for each child, parents can claim for $4,000, instead of $2,000. The tax relief for a handicapped child has also gone up to $5,500, from $3,500.
  • Bigger baby bonus: $4,000 for first and second child instead of $3,000
  • More paid maternity leave: Paid maternity leave will go up from 12 to 16 weeks for mothers of Singaporean children born from Jan 1 next year.
  • Greater protection for pregnant women: They will get maternity leave benefits, if fired without good cause within the last six months of pregnancy. These benefits will also be given if she is laid off in the last three months of her pregnancy.
  • Co-funding of in-vitro fertilisation treatment: the Government will from next month co-pay fertility treatments for women under age 40 but the treatment must be at public hospitals. Couples can receive 50 per cent funding - up to $3,000 - for each cycle of Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatments, for a maximum of three cycles.
  • Increased subsidies at childcare and infantcare centres: working mothers will get double the amount of monthly subsidies at childcare centres, from $150 to $300. At infantcare centres, their subsidies will also go up, from $400 to $600 a month.
However, the highly complex problem of low birth rates is going to need much more than just the Government throwing money at it.

Two Straits Times forum letters raise the non-monetary aspects of the issue. For example, in the letter entitled “Tackle the problem, not the symptoms” published on 20 Aug, Mr Thomas Ling wondered aloud if the Government was “barking up the wrong tree regarding the issue of our falling population”.

He said: “Our pursuit of economic excellence and rewards in the past 40 years has resulted in a new breed of young Singaporeans who hold different values about life”.

I agree with him. Nowadays, Singaporeans are more individualistic and materialistic, no thanks in part to the rapidly increasing cost of living, over-crowding, the decrease in personal space, and the fast paced of life. And this is a global phenomenon, prevalent in the developed world. Look at Japan, for instance.

Thomas Ling said: “While much of the blame has been pinned on our ‘Stop At Two’ policy in the 70s, the truth has to do with changing lifestyles rather than the success of that policy.”

My take is that the ‘Stop At Two’ policy was shortsighted. It was not just a successful policy, but one that overshot its intended target. As a result, the decline in Singapore’s birth rate has been artificially accelerated over the years, and now the Government imports vast numbers of foreign talents in an attempt to make up the numbers.

Thomas Ling also said: “While monetary incentives help in some way towards boosting the birth rate, its effectiveness is suspect because the underlying problem is the changed attitude towards marriage and family life.” I fully agree with this.

And I would add that the Government’s singular focus on economic progress without adequate attention paid to nurturing a more open society, and a society that pays attention to the intangibles in life such as culture, values, and a community spirit, is also to blame for the current state of affairs.

The issue of low birth rates is a personal, social, and community issue as much as it is a monetary issue. The Government should realize that merely throwing money at the problem is akin to treating the symptoms but not the underlying causes.

The ST letter entitled “Growing up in Singapore - Is it the right place” written by Mrs Eileen Aung-Thwin and published on 20 Aug addresses another concern: Are Singaporeans’ poor social graces making this country an unconducive place for children to grow up in?

Eileen Aung-Thwin cites the example of a letter written recently from a young undergraduate who asked for her future employer not to saddle her with “grunt work” which should be left to her secretary, whom she expects to come with her first job.

Eileen Aung-Thwin says, “The sense of entitlement and selfishness demonstrated by that young woman may have been extreme but I do think that the attitude is commonplace.”

She also asks, “… parents play a big part in how children turn out, but we cannot underestimate external factors such as society’s influence, peer pressure and the education system. While our education system helps students excel in academics, what sort of values does it promote?”

I think Eileen Aung-Thwin’s concerns are very legitimate. Some parents might be deterred from raising children in a country where social graces and values are lacking. This problem, again, cannot be solved by merely throwing money at potential child-rearing couples. It goes back to the root of how our society is governed and how our young are educated.

In its singular pursuit of material gain, the PAP Government has neglected all these intangibles, and now they are coming back to haunt us.

On a more down-to-earth front, I am also concerned that the needs of employers are not being adequately looked into. Employers are expected to give more benefits and more rights to working mothers, but has the Government considered the burden they may be carrying as a result?

For example, what criteria would the Government use to assess whether an employer has fired a pregnant woman “for no good reason”? Such criteria must invariably be subjective. How would an external party determine whether the retrenchment of a pregnant employee was due to genuine discrimination, or due to other factors that are not the fault of the employer such as poor work attitude on the part of the lady employee?

While the Government’s recommendation that working mums be treated fairly at the workplace is admirable, one wonders if employers would invariably be given the short end of the stick.

The Government should realize that bureaucratic decision made at the top, while sounding noble, often filter down to unfair and unjust practices at the bottom.

The issue of discrimination at the workplace is itself a highly complex one. For example, discrimination against pregnant women can be more subtle than outrightly retrenching them, for instance, being shunned by friends or being given unfair poor annual appraisals by their immediate supervisors. This tangled web of workplace discrimination cannot be simply legislated away.

In short, Singapore’s chronic problem of low birth rates is not unique, but experienced in many developed nations as well. The Government has decided to throw a lot of money at it, but what is needed is a far more holistic approach that takes into account the various intangibles in life.
PAP want young to pay hell tons of money to them for their FLAT and they increase the cost of living to an unbearable amount year after year. On the other end , they want us to bear more kids.

They really think SIngaporean is a machine ??????????? Make more money so that singapore can pay more tax ! Make more babies so that PAP can tax us MORE !

Seems that everytihng is abt money, what ever decision/solution they make.
 

Porfirio Rubirosa

Alfrescian
Loyal
I don't think it is that easy. If it was, generally the developed nations would still not be facing the same problem after all these years.

Throwing money at the problem is not the solution, it is like treating the symptons without finding out what causes the diease.

Who is that diease, one do not need to guess!:wink: , just treat the diease, the problem of normal pro-creation without a stressful life will follow!!:biggrin:
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
... The devil is in the details as always ...

my humble 2 cents,

sustainability is the crux:

i. where population is concerned, the populace must find it favorable for them to reproduce.

ii. favorable conditions for the Citizens meant the following:
1. Citizens are treated as first class peoples, provided they behave like one.
2. Citizens are not being treated as serfs, as they already are.
3. Citizens are paid their dues, provided they deserve it.
4. Citizens being able to retire with grace, and not slogging past 65.
5. Citizens being able to have enough quality family time.
6. Citizens being empowered with true ownership and responsibility.

iii. where these 6 above points are concerned, there are other factors revolving around them, which includes:

1. Education
somehow our education system is churning out bulks of serfs, not bulks of thinking individuals. the continual success of the nation depends on bulks of thinking individuals, philosophers, and statesmen capable of motivating the Citizens to act and function as a whole. we don't have much natural produce and therefore the training of the mind is important. with a thinking nation, would you need foreign talents? yes, but to a minimal.

2. Employment
stop lumping the PR and Citizens together as a figure to show for employment rates. lower the taxes for foreign MNCs so they would be attracted to set up shops here. entice the MNCs to employ Citizens with higher tax rebates. i understand that we do not have natural resources and hence our economy would have to depend on trade, petroleum and some reverse engineering. technology is certainly something we can bank on, but that would require the brightest mind to fuel project and make something tangible out of it.

3. Housing & CPF
scrap that racial quota, stop dividing us by race, I only see a human race, and we're all Singaporeans. sky high prices for that pigeon hole, for a 99 year lease, that pigeon hole can't be handed down to the off-springs. it is just the same as paying upfront rentals for a rented place. for the large middle class, a large portion of the CPF is used for the housing loan, you think they even dare to retire? how are folks able to have enough disposable income for extra mouths in the household?

4. National Service
either scrap mandatory conscription, or pay them market rates. and cut that 2 years into just 1 year. that reservist thing is a pain in the arse too...

5. National Identity
the latest poll shown 3/4 of the adults planning of retirement elsewhere, very telling, isn't it? the racial segregation is a pain in the neck, we're all Singaporeans, and there is a growing need for the emergence of an anchor point. the influx of new immigrants should not be a problem as i see it, but not as a mean to bolster the figures of any community. honestly, this country lacks soul.

in essence, if you want the culture to continue to grow, add more medium or remove the competition. tackling these issues all at once will take tremendous effort, and it would probably take 1 or 2 generations to set all the pieces in place. as said earlier in post5, i still dream of the day where Singapore would be hailed as a heaven on earth and her Citizens would be synonymous with compassion, grace, and intellectual humility... and i need not take millions for this. :biggrin:

one burning question thou': does the Government plan to continue to develop her Citizens as serfs/economic digits for their coffers or as Citizens of this Republic? :biggrin:
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
I don't think it is that easy. If it was, generally the developed nations would still not be facing the same problem after all these years.

no doubt there's a global trend of a greying nation for most developed nations, they all have a common trait, the stress level. and why do you need that growing population? to fuel the economy? :biggrin:
 

steadyman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
Not really. People do take to tangibles (ie tax breaks, child care and other incentives) -akin to medication to some ailment. More than just airy fairy or grandiose schemes. Talk's cheap, but show the populace the colour of money too... aka get real. And we do need labour (oops sorry, pun unintended) legislation, as few in private sector has mission statement to do national service.

No guarantee they work, but it's some start to long journey. Boils down to personal choice eventually

What I see it will attract more foreigners to settle down then getting local to settle down and give birth. One of the factor for low fertility rate is stress. Local are feeling more stress as most of us work from the ground and climb up, unless those scholars. So foreigners, somehow have talent, climb faster and feel here is the place for them to settle down. All the merrier with the tangible.
 

Adidas

Alfrescian
Loyal
this problem also faced by those develope countries like US,Australia,Japan and so on.
monetary is just one option/way to help to increase the rate.
beside this,i am afraid PAP will have to come up with more scheme/plan/incentive.
 

steadyman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
What the fark is $4000 ? Buying a dog !

If I do not see 200K per child is a farking waste of time excisize by the government again.

As I have told my colleagues, the amount can't really work out however for those who are in the bad situation, this will somehow help some of them.

To those young couples, don't get caught by the $$$. Think about your financial capability and think thoroughly who will be looking after your baby? When they are in pre-school who will bring them there. If you put them in child care, bare in mind they will put you in adultly care when you are old. Those parent who kids are in child care, try asking your kids. kids are naive and speak what they think.
 

steadyman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
this problem also faced by those develope countries like US,Australia,Japan and so on.
monetary is just one option/way to help to increase the rate.
beside this,i am afraid PAP will have to come up with more scheme/plan/incentive.

True. The fact with lower birth rate is signaling to the government, ppl are thinking far deeper.
 

steadyman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
The great baby booster package benefits the Malay community the most. I doubt, even with these "generous" new monetary boosters, the Chinese will suddenly start having 5 kids.

Totally agree with you. How many Chinese have 5 kids?? I only know 1 among all my friends and colleagues. Those with kids stop at 2 and most of them 1 are enough. How to cope with both parent working still got old folks to take care. I'm feeling it may also due to providing lot more benefits for the old folks, so as to ease the burden for the young parent.
 

steadyman1

Alfrescian
Loyal
PAP want young to pay hell tons of money to them for their FLAT and they increase the cost of living to an unbearable amount year after year. On the other end , they want us to bear more kids.

They really think SIngaporean is a machine ??????????? Make more money so that singapore can pay more tax ! Make more babies so that PAP can tax us MORE !

Seems that everytihng is abt money, what ever decision/solution they make.

They are indirectly telling the foreigners come be my citizen and we give you benefit. This way faster. Like foreign talent.

P.s. Not against foreigners but that is fact.
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
this problem also faced by those develope countries like US,Australia,Japan and so on.
monetary is just one option/way to help to increase the rate.
beside this,i am afraid PAP will have to come up with more scheme/plan/incentive.

Japan plans to spend USD$16B to entice her folks to bear more children, last i remembered... i could be wrong :p
 
Top