I hope this never comes to pass. (PS. You’re going to need to read his article first before reading the following.)
Let me highlight what he suggests:
1) More “joys of the family” propaganda. As if we didn’t have to endure enough of it. (Which I think also contradicts the 2nd point, explained below.)
2) Single mothers should have equal benefits to their married counterparts. Okay, fair enough. I think this is about the only good point he made. In fact, the only reason why single mothers aren’t part of it is because of all the “joys of the family” propaganda we get. The propaganda reflects exactly the kind of babies they want (and out-of-wedlock ones are the ones they don’t want). So I would say, good luck with changing the powers-that-be’s minds about that first!
3) Curtail and prevent abortions which have “no good reason”. Well, guess what? Who’s gong to define those ‘good reasons’? You? Want to hand us a permission slip or something? What right do you have in deciding whether a woman should or should not have a child, married or not? Why should pregnancy mean it is a coup de grace to whatever right a woman has in leading the kind of life she wants? And this fellow justifies the birth of many, many unwanted babies by saying that ‘maternal instincts’ would kick in.
I don’t know what he’s thinking but frankly, I don’t think it’s very much. Why does he think married women go for the abortions? The fact that they may have a ‘traditional’ family arrangement (ie. marriage) in place does not mean that she wants to have more children than she already does or any at all. If the measure he suggests is put in place (permission slips to have abortions), I think it will just mean 1) condom sales will rise, 2) married men would be having less sex than they already do. Because as we all know, abstinence is the only 100% safe protection!
4) Yada-yada ask companies to hand out more contract positions and cut down on the full-time jobs. Thanks a lot ah.
5) Tax rebates are teh wrong. He forgets that these baby tax rebates are not for wealth redistribution but acts as an incentive. Why shouldn’t rich(er) people get more incentive than poorer people huh? I thought the government was ALL FOR those rich, graduate mothers to have kids! If he makes the case that tax rebates are wrong because they are helping the rich(er), then we should not be getting deductions for dependents either. After all, if only people above a certain income bracket need to pay tax, these rich people don’t need it already what. They can afford! No tax cuts for you!
As for his second point about maternity leave, I think he go ask those NS men how they’re compensated for having to do reservist. After all, isn’t giving birth juuuusst like NS for women?
Also, there’s something wrong with his numbers. Only the last 4 weeks (if any) of max 12 weeks of the maternity leave is paid for by the government (and that’s only if the employer is agreeable to having her take the extra 4 weeks off). The employer will bear the $40k (going by his example) while the government would bear $20k. I don’t know how many women or their employers will go by this arrangement because the ones I know didn’t (two I talked to quit before confinement, choosing to find another job afterwards). I suspect the reality is that taking things like maternity leave is in the province of civil servants. Heh.
—
Perhaps he should be asking first why really people are having fewer children in the first place (which he has insufficiently addressed in this article). Besides being a historical trend as Singapore became a more modern society, he cannot ignore that changes in expectations about having children has followed too. Children these days are ‘nurtured’, pampered and put through as many ‘enrichment’ classes as possible. I think that the standards have shifted very much. I think if we treated our children as they did back in the past, we would be crying neglect and abuse.
Children are luxuries in this day and age, and have been so since we were pulled kicking and screaming through the industrial revolution. They can’t be put to work (as they were back in the day) and so make no economic sense, really, in fact, a lot of money goes into their upkeep (breeding, care, word of your choice). Everyone always talks about how they’re insurance against old age (hoho, another topic I have plenty of opinions about too) but they’re really a poor investment these days with extended adolescences and high maintenance.
So having children requires something more than economic calculations (since their returns are unfavourable). Ironically, if I were put in charge of population planning, the first point about “joys of the family” propaganda would figure highly in my campaign. But looking at how it is currently executed, I can only shake my head the attempt. I don’t know if it’s a lack of imagination or being out of touch (probably both) but these campaigns are laughably lame, cliche and much too picture perfect. You would think they spend some time in thinking about meaning management and all that but no. (I guess all the top PR/Brand managers are making too much money in corporations, hahah.)
(On another note, I was quite surprised by a recent ad where it depicted a single dad and his daughter as she grew up. I think that it was marred by the bad acting and the silly materialism, but still, it had a single parent family held in a positive light which is rather rare.)
The low birth rate cannot simply be explained away by ’selfishness’ or that he expect we not apply cost-benefit analysis to having kids (I shudder at the implication for people not to think about family planning). And I think that one of the worst offending suggestions he writes about is the forcing of women to forgo abortions to raise the birth rate. Isn’t that just like NS for women? Don’t make me puke.
For that matter, why not loosen up the child labour laws so that these little burdensome bundles of joy can start earning their keep sooner? Gosh, ain’t that a good idea.
And I know! You might as well kill 2 birds with 1 stone by employing women (raise jobs) in a womb factory to spew out more kids (raise birth rate)! Because it’s all in the national interest to raise the birth rate, we should nationalise baby production. *Clap, clap* Go ahead, give me a cookie for that.
Anyway, it’s 4am and I need sleep.
Related posts:
- Birth Order
- QA friendly (future?) Singapore
- Me? Marriage??? Kids?!??!?!
- Ideas
- Irony
Worst Ideas Ever
I hope this never comes to pass. (PS. You’re going to need to read his article first before reading the following.)
Let me highlight what he suggests:
1) More “joys of the family” propaganda. As if we didn’t have to endure enough of it. (Which I think also contradicts the 2nd point, explained below.)
2) Single mothers should have equal benefits to their married counterparts. Okay, fair enough. I think this is about the only good point he made. In fact, the only reason why single mothers aren’t part of it is because of all the “joys of the family” propaganda we get. The propaganda reflects exactly the kind of babies they want (and out-of-wedlock ones are the ones they don’t want). So I would say, good luck with changing the powers-that-be’s minds about that first!
3) Curtail and prevent abortions which have “no good reason”. Well, guess what? Who’s gong to define those ‘good reasons’? You? Want to hand us a permission slip or something? What right do you have in deciding whether a woman should or should not have a child, married or not? Why should pregnancy mean it is a coup de grace to whatever right a woman has in leading the kind of life she wants? And this fellow justifies the birth of many, many unwanted babies by saying that ‘maternal instincts’ would kick in.
I don’t know what he’s thinking but frankly, I don’t think it’s very much. Why does he think married women go for the abortions? The fact that they may have a ‘traditional’ family arrangement (ie. marriage) in place does not mean that she wants to have more children than she already does or any at all. If the measure he suggests is put in place (permission slips to have abortions), I think it will just mean 1) condom sales will rise, 2) married men would be having less sex than they already do. Because as we all know, abstinence is the only 100% safe protection!
4) Yada-yada ask companies to hand out more contract positions and cut down on the full-time jobs. Thanks a lot ah.
5) Tax rebates are teh wrong. He forgets that these baby tax rebates are not for wealth redistribution but acts as an incentive. Why shouldn’t rich(er) people get more incentive than poorer people huh? I thought the government was ALL FOR those rich, graduate mothers to have kids! If he makes the case that tax rebates are wrong because they are helping the rich(er), then we should not be getting deductions for dependents either. After all, if only people above a certain income bracket need to pay tax, these rich people don’t need it already what. They can afford! No tax cuts for you!
As for his second point about maternity leave, I think he go ask those NS men how they’re compensated for having to do reservist. After all, isn’t giving birth juuuusst like NS for women?
Also, there’s something wrong with his numbers. Only the last 4 weeks (if any) of max 12 weeks of the maternity leave is paid for by the government (and that’s only if the employer is agreeable to having her take the extra 4 weeks off). The employer will bear the $40k (going by his example) while the government would bear $20k. I don’t know how many women or their employers will go by this arrangement because the ones I know didn’t (two I talked to quit before confinement, choosing to find another job afterwards). I suspect the reality is that taking things like maternity leave is in the province of civil servants. Heh.
—
Perhaps he should be asking first why really people are having fewer children in the first place (which he has insufficiently addressed in this article). Besides being a historical trend as Singapore became a more modern society, he cannot ignore that changes in expectations about having children has followed too. Children these days are ‘nurtured’, pampered and put through as many ‘enrichment’ classes as possible. I think that the standards have shifted very much. I think if we treated our children as they did back in the past, we would be crying neglect and abuse.
Children are luxuries in this day and age, and have been so since we were pulled kicking and screaming through the industrial revolution. They can’t be put to work (as they were back in the day) and so make no economic sense, really, in fact, a lot of money goes into their upkeep (breeding, care, word of your choice). Everyone always talks about how they’re insurance against old age (hoho, another topic I have plenty of opinions about too) but they’re really a poor investment these days with extended adolescences and high maintenance.
So having children requires something more than economic calculations (since their returns are unfavourable). Ironically, if I were put in charge of population planning, the first point about “joys of the family” propaganda would figure highly in my campaign. But looking at how it is currently executed, I can only shake my head the attempt. I don’t know if it’s a lack of imagination or being out of touch (probably both) but these campaigns are laughably lame, cliche and much too picture perfect. You would think they spend some time in thinking about meaning management and all that but no. (I guess all the top PR/Brand managers are making too much money in corporations, hahah.)
(On another note, I was quite surprised by a recent ad where it depicted a single dad and his daughter as she grew up. I think that it was marred by the bad acting and the silly materialism, but still, it had a single parent family held in a positive light which is rather rare.)
The low birth rate cannot simply be explained away by ’selfishness’ or that he expect we not apply cost-benefit analysis to having kids (I shudder at the implication for people not to think about family planning). And I think that one of the worst offending suggestions he writes about is the forcing of women to forgo abortions to raise the birth rate. Isn’t that just like NS for women? Don’t make me puke.
For that matter, why not loosen up the child labour laws so that these little burdensome bundles of joy can start earning their keep sooner? Gosh, ain’t that a good idea.
And I know! You might as well kill 2 birds with 1 stone by employing women (raise jobs) in a womb factory to spew out more kids (raise birth rate)! Because it’s all in the national interest to raise the birth rate, we should nationalise baby production. *Clap, clap* Go ahead, give me a cookie for that.
Anyway, it’s 4am and I need sleep.
Related posts: