Second reason I think is not planning for parenthood and a shortage of parenting courses (no, I am not joking). Many first-time parents are lost without some guidance in baby-care and child discipline. They either over-rely on maids/parents/in-laws or they “suddenly wake up one day” to find themselves with rebellious kids.

Look around you – some of those who can’t afford children are ’sprouting babies’ like nothing. Those who can afford are not having any. And many are having babies for all the wrong kinds of reasons – to spite an ex-boyfriend, etc. (God bless those who know what they’re doing!)

If I were the govt, and I see that there is a pressing need for people to start work and pay taxes on time, why would I waste time waiting for babies to be born and then grow up to being able-bodied working people 30yrs later? Might as well get foreigners in and the result is immediate.

The main thing for low birth rate is not because of the absence of low incentives, but rather is the big picture – the economic environment of Singapore.

50yrs ago, during my grandmother’s time, there weren’t much baby incentives but still she had 7 children – 5 daughters and 2 sons to be exact – and raised them single-handedly (my grandfather passed away at an early age of 38).

Now in 2008, you see most couples having either 1 or 2, very little having more than 3. That’s due to the INCREASING COST OF LIVING.

In short, the govt has to wake up their idea and realise that it’s not the incentives that’s going to solve this problem, rather they have to lower the INCREASING COST OF LIVING.

More like ‘from married couples’ or “divorced indiciduals”. There are many well-educated (especially those above 35) who would not hesitate to have kids without any marriage ties.

I agree with most of your suggestions, since this is how most of us would do in our work place. I mean, segmentize your customers (potential parents), and analyze which customers would give you the highest yield for your limited marketing budget, in this case number of babies per couple.

These would be the sensible things to do, PROVIDED the govt is genuinely interested in getting higher birth rate, regardless of mother’s educational background.

I’m afraid the govt’s unspoken agenda is still to get more babies from educated parents. It would be naive to assume that the govt, with all those trained economists, would have missed what you have suggested.

Anyway, good work, and keep it coming.

Regards,

You see, having kids should be a natural progression for couples and most can afford to have at least two kids if they so wished. So why is the govt throwing good money at these people for having kids when taxpayers monies could be used for more challenging needs?

If couples don’t want to have kids for whatever reasons, this token amount will not move them. Furthermore, do we want to encourage births for all the wrong reasons?

There maybe some on the fringe who could genuinely appreciate state’s money to help them along but the number, i suspect, are few( these could have been assisted on a case by case if need be). So effectively, we are throwing good tax payers monies, which could have been put to more worthy uses, at many couples who already are financially able and willing parents come what may!

It seems like, even in giving births, the rich are…well, getting richer for it. Now I am not saying we should not help couples who want to be better parents but, most do not need a financial windfall for doing something that comes naturally to them.

Aids should be given to ‘fringe cases’ only.

That said, how many want to wager wasting tax monies on these (mostly) generally well to do couples will help save this country from falling birth rate?

Please.

“in our desperation at social engineering, i hope we don’t add to the widening chasm between the haves and the haves-not, the us and the they and ..those with babies and those wih barbies?”

Social engineering ? The enginer too much lah, engineer this and engineer that. LIke a sick man taking many types of medicines, with each type of medicine to counteract the side effects of another medicine.

in our desperation at social engineering, i hope we don’t add to the widening chasm between the haves and the haves-not, the us and the they and ..those with babies and those wih barbies?

Thank you for your views.

As a senior citizen, I have only one regret – I wished I had many more children but the Government’s penalising policies then were very discouraging.

It is indeed too little, perhaps – “peanuts” (money @ S$600,000 pa no enough) can help, and feeling cold sweat with all the calculations!

Yeh, it is too late to reverse the trend with Singaporeans ; perhaps not too late with “FTs”. The future is going to be quite like an emotional roller coaster……….

The government will again worry there’s NOT ENOUGH younger people to take care of the old because the old were born at the time when “more children” were encouraged.

What the government should say is: HAVE AS MANY CHILDREN AS YOU DEEM FIT ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD AND WHAT YOU’RE WILLING TO SPEND FOR THE CHILD.

The government should not encourage people to have children for the greed of money or when they are not emotionally and mentally ready for kids.

Mortality (I hate to say this word) and Singaporeans who immigrate will “balance” the population nicely! >,<

At the end of the day, it is true that $$$ can’t buy babies. It is still up to individuals/couples.

Cheers! :)

The government policy on procreation has come to late and too little to make any difference unless there is a revolutionary rethink of economic policy or wait for the problem to ride itself out.

The government’s economic policy of growth for growth sake means that it will have no choice but to rely on foreign investments or labour. In the Singapore context the reliance on foreign investment and labour is far greater than any other countries. And to top it all, what you have now is a economy trying to be a first world country in living standard but at the same time fuelling that living standard with low costs labour.

To meet these twin goals, it will have to ensure there is a pool of low cost labour and that is not going to be met by boosting birth rate, which is not a short term solution.

Also it would be extremely hard pressed to pile any more so-called pro-family legislature without causing backlash from businesses. For example, the extended maternity leave will very unlikely to be easily enforced. Businesses can easily discriminate against mothers, which is likely to be local, by simply not hiring or promoting women. And with a lax overseas regime can easily just make the case for overseas labour.

To break the cycle, and say adopt the Scandinavian model, not only the government but also the Singapore electorate will need to a different mindset. One that emphasised a sustainable economic policy not a growth for growth sake policy. Also not one that accumulate wealth for the sake of it but one where wealth is meant to enhanced life.

Politically, the government is in a bind for the PAP depends on growth as it legitimacy to govern. So anything short of returning sterling growth will be disastrous. Adopting the Scandinavian model will be an anathema to the PAP’s social policy of self reliance. Besides, many in the PAP are too blinkered to see the value of the Scandinavian model but will instead focus on the cost. So within the party it is unlikely to sell such a model.

Outside the party, the business community in Singapore are too used to low taxation and loose legislation to contemplate the Scandinavian model. The PAP or for that matter will face a revolt from the very base (i.e. foreign businesses largely) from which they draw power.

There is also a myth that Scandinavian system itself is also less stressful than Singapore. The stress is manifested differently. In the Scandinavian system, their commercial strength lies in highly productive labour force to feed the economy. To sustain this level or productivity, you will need to a highly creative workforce, which can be a stressful prospect itself. They labour productivity (in terms of output value to labour cost) far outstrip Singapore’s.

An anecdotal evidence was provided by a Swedish colleague who noted, when he worked in Singapore, how in people in Singapore seemed to spend more time be in work (or pretending to work) and producing nothing or something of low value than his own countrymen. Even in the sphere of entrepreneurship the Scandinavian countries were able to generate more new businesses (world beating ones) than Singapore in quite a number fields (music — ABBA, IT and biotech).

I wonder who prepares the numbers?

I am neutral.

They are like headless chicken moving aimlessly.

At least, if we failed to achieve the needed number of babies to replace the living dead, we can still stem the bleed of SINgaporeans from leaving?

After all, we seems to have breed a kind of people that wIll do anything for money? lol