In terms of encouraging birth rates, the govt is still thinking about cutting costs by providing too little incentives. I don’t think $10K per child is enough.

To save cost for the government, we should just come up with a requirement that one parent or both should have an income (or combine) at an amount of SGD5000 or more to be able to give birth to even one child. This amount should be review every few years taking into account inflation & other factors. There really is no reason why a couple who cannot afford to provide well for the child to give birth & thus need to enlist help from social service causing burden to other taxpayer.

[...] Baby Bonuses – TOC: A child is a child [...]

As much as the government is trying to assist, financial assistance can only do so little.

The whole social structure, mindset and expectations of one’s self-importance and selfishness in this modern world class society of ours is the real disease in low birth rates.

I have so many friends in their 30s who would laugh or even scoff at having kids. It’s all about Me, Myself and I…..even as a married couple. Everyone just keeping up with the Joneses. Unfortunately having kids is not one of the KPI in the Joneses’s list.

No surprise why divorce proceedings are so much easier when kids are not on the agenda. It’s such a sad and vicious cycle of the consumption lifestyle.

very true GS

One thing should be clear….PRs and foreigners should NOT enjoy any of these tax benefits

Tan Kin Lian’s 3rd paragraph sums up the unintended consequence of this meritocratic society that we live in. Everyone becomes very calculating and every move is very calculated. Who would want to receive the shorter end of the stick?

In every society, there will be its winners and losers. It is for each individual to define the yardsticks of success and failure in their own lives. Unfortunately, in Singapore, the only yardstick that most people go by is the financial one which seems to me is the trademark of cosmopolitan living.

In addition, having babies in Singapore is not the end of the story.

When kids reach the school going age, parents have to strategically plan where to live, do volunteer work just to help their kids get into a school of their choice. This actually takes a life form of its own – like a career move. And with all the branding schools have these days, it is no wonder everyone is fighting tooth and nail just to get their kids into the ‘prestigious’ institutions for the image and hopefully (but not guaranteed) better future.

It’s really insane. In my opinion, most of my sane self-centered, well educated, consumption conscious, high earning professional friends would not give the time of their day to make such a sacrifice. Some maybe, but I doubt most would. Their time is just too ‘expensive’.

They do not need more mundane problems other than to which car to buy – a BMW or Audi.

Disclaimer: No offense intended to those BMW or Audi owners that have perfectly functioning and happy families. Kudos to you guys.

This article by Mr Tan, is very well written and reveals the spanna that’s in the machinery of baby-making in Singapore.
However, after 4 decades, is it not known to all of you including our good writer, that the so called government we have is not into the habit of LISTENING to the people they lord over?

I stopped wasting my breath way long ago, and have left them to taste the result of their method of governance – which by now is showing up in all sorts of flavors.

Vote them in another term or two, and there will be NO MORE locals left.

It is sickening and disgusting to know that the Government and (some) common Singaporean is treating a human live (in this case a Child ~ to be born) as commodity. Sad nation indeed. For those who are advocating such policies, let alone seeking for more and better benefit, are you any different to the greedy lot of high-paying ministers?

If there is the fear that the poor parents will bear more children, then this Baby Bonus can be restricted to a certain number of children in each family.

I am personally very disturbed over the author’s comments on poor parents having children, but I am sure he meant better because a child is a child after all. Does this kind of notion pop up in the hearts of PAP parliamentarians, so that they can keep the percentage of poor people down to make their KPI look better? Poor people is still people. A poor child is a child too. It would not be unprecedented because PAP has attempted selective breeding among Singaporeans through the SDU. SDU was set up to only matchmake highly educated singles!

10) Observer (SG-HK) on September 19th, 2008 4.53 pm

Headless chicken running about ? They are forever playing catching up with these issues. Not easy task to manage as they have already created and inherited a set of conditions which there will even be louder howls in times to come.

People shouldn’t have babies just because of the incentives.
Child: Dad, why do I have so many brothers & sisters?
Father: Cos gov offered lotsa $ & incentives!
…
That’s just wrong.
The joy of having babies & having a new family member has become so complicated now & laced with the issue of financial benefits.

Ever wonder why people of high market value are migrating?

I think to survive in spore, your children will have to be very capable and study a lot and not just that be very good at it to secure scholarships and compete with children from rich families who provide their children the very best money can buy to give them an edge over the poorer kids.

To survive in spore, the kid must have min above average IQ and hopefully not handicapped. That will require super effort to get ahead in this kind of society.

They will compete with anyone who applys to come here as foreign worker, PR or new citizen.

Their surroundings is flats, more flats.

In short, before you procreate, think about how much pressure your kids will need to go through more so than you have gone through.

Enjoy more good years and remain extremely pragmatic , calculative, compete, compete and more compete!!! stress yourselves up.

well done.

Typical mentality of Kiasu & Kiasi. Trademark of Singaporeans! Wondering when Singaporeans are growing up to change this mentality? I pity the child with so much pressure at such a young age to go thru the cycle of life – “compete with anyone who applys to come here as foreign worker, PR or new citizen”.

Hi Donalson Tan (#11)

It is fair to give the incentives to all parents up to two or three children.

There is a concern that the poor families are likely to have more children, if they get generous incentives that cover a large part of the cost of raising the child. The cost is lower to a poor parent as the poor parents will not be able to give the extra support to the child and put their child at a disadvantage.

We have to recognise this concern that generous incentives will lead to more poor family have more children. I prefer a system that each family has a quota of children that is largely financed by the state.

For the first two or three children in each family, I like to see all the children being treated equally. Those from poor families should not be palced at a disadvantage compared to those from rich families.

http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Australias-Baby-Bonus-Plan-has-Increased-the-Birth-Rate-12596-1/

Australia baby bonus has increased the birth rate. The bonus introduced in 2004 was AUD 3,000 per child, regardless of the income level and marital status of the mother. It has since been raised to AUD 4,000.

The birth rate increased from 1.76 to 1.82, far above the level in Singapore.

It seems that a simpler system adopted in Australia works better than the comploicated system adopted in Singapore (which discriminates according to many conflicting criteria).

A further correction to #17

The Australian baby bonus has since been raised to AUD 5,000. Australians also delay their birth to enjoy a higher baby bonus.

http://www.vhemt.org/bbbounty.htm

This link shows a few countries that have been successful in increasing their birth rates – Australia, Estonia, France.

They do not need complicated packages recommended by high paid civil servants and politicians.

I have already mentioned it on this website earlier, but well, my point is the policy makers just aren’t opening up their books to tell the entire mechanics how they came up with all the birth boosting policies for so many years. (I repeat, at each stage, there muct have been at least 1 critical flaw in thinking).
I have nothing against highly paid civil servants and politicians, but I see 2 issues :
(a) the results from the policies are either dismal or unintended.
So far, they have stopped short in commenting about delivering TFR results, despite their high pays. This leads to an unintended conclusion that we can be better off not over-using taxpayers’ money for the related govt structure vs lower paying candidates (even though it is possible they don’t deliver TFR results). The fact that other countries have delivered better results, meant our policy makers either have a performance issue, for 1 cause or the other.
(b) the policy makers are out of touch with the people. To me, this is a greater problem than (a).

Tan Kin Lian (#16):

I am sure even poor people are rational enough to see that even child benefits would not be sufficient to cover the cost of raising a child, on top of their personal expenses. People are generally motivated to have children if they are comfortable with their economic settings. The notion that more children brings in more income would be applicable in an agrarian society, but definitely not an urban one.

But you raised a good point that our children incentive scheme is just too complicated. Formulating a good policy is half battle won, but one must be effective in communicating the policy to the people to actually effect change. A complicated policy simply hinders the effectiveness of the policy, no matter how good the intentions behind the policy are.

Hi GS (#4, #7)

I agree with your views that other factors are important, e.g.. social attitudes, non-financial priorities. We have to educate people about these matters as well.

We still have to reduce the cost to parent, so that they will find that children are not a financial burden.

BABY BONUS IN AUSTRALIA

Baby Bonus is paid to families following the birth (including stillborn babies) or adoption of a baby. It recognises the extra costs incurred at the time of a new birth or adoption of a baby and is not income tested.

Can I get Baby Bonus?
To be eligible for Baby Bonus you must:
be the parent of a dependent child; or
be a carer other than the parent of a newborn child within 13 weeks of the child’s birth and be likely to continue to have the care of the child for no less than 13 weeks; or
in the case of adoption the child must have come into your care before the child is two years of age. In the case of overseas adoptions the child must have entered Australia before their second birthday; and
meet Australian residency requirements for family assistance purposes

Parents are required to formally register the birth of their child as a condition of receiving the Baby Bonus for births on or after 1 July 2007. This requirement does not apply to parents whose child is stillborn, adopted or born outside Australia.

How much can I get?
Baby Bonus is a one-off payment of $5,000 for each child and is usually paid as a lump sum. For claimants aged 17 years or under, the Baby Bonus is paid in 13 equal fortnightly instalments.

Baby Bonus is payable for each child in a multiple birth. If there is a change in care during the 13 weeks eligibility period, the payment may be apportioned between two carers.

Note: Baby Bonus is indexed in July of each year. Baby Bonus is not taxable income and it is not considered income for Family Assistance or Social Security purposes.

It seems that Australia also has a complicated overlapping system, as shown in this article:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23371963-2702,00.html

Perhaps the reason why the Australian system is more successful than Singapore is that it is more generous and less discriminatory.

The govt has a well-earned reputation for being extremely calculating and manipulative. On this issue, it is behaving in like manner. I see these so called ‘incentives’ as no more than baits for parents/potential parents. Once caught, have you heard of anyone feeding a fish that have been caught hook line and sinker?

Having a child is a life-long commitment of not just dollars and cents during the initial period. The cost and commitment go on and on and on.

I hope that the policy makers in Singapore learn from the failures of the past 20 yeras and do not continue on the same failed approach.

A new approach is:

> simplify
> be more generous
> do not discriminate

I believe that a new approach will produce the success, as seen in Australia.

I’ve always had an issue with how our local Baby Bonus scheme does not extend its benefits to single mothers.

If at the end of the day, what the country is trying to achieve is a higher birth rate, it shouldn’t matter whether the child is brought up as part of a “common family nucleus”.

As the writer of this article has so simply put it: “A child is a child.” I believe single mothers would need more help than ever since there would only be 1 set of grandparents and a single income coming from the mother.

> I find the incentives implemented during the past years to encourage procreation (i.e. Singaporeans to have more children) to be unnecessarily complicated and discriminatory.

A large part of such complicated policy arises from the assumption that simple, direct, and uniform incentives, such as a simple one-time cash payout for every child, may be misused.

Therefore, the government set up such policies to ensure that subsidies meet the goals better, overall. In other words, the central authority believes they can do a better than some of the people. The intention is as justified as how you believe a centrally managed pension fund would prevent non-financial savvy people from making mistakes and so benefit the society as a whole. The rational is same, although the social issue is different.

For example, the government believes that restricting incentives to Singaporean new-borns better benefit the Singapore population, and setting up accounts for specific purposes ensure that benefits reach the child in that specific way.

Apart from imperfections in the policies, one can criticise the state-nanny for treating everyone like a fool. On the other hand, the bigger picture is that more individual freedom comes with more individual responsibility and also the possibility of a wider social gap. And individual responsibility is one ingredient for a successful democracy.