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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.