Leong Sze Hian, Andrew Loh

The latest slew of measures by the Government to encourage Singaporeans to have babies is welcome. Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng, who made the announcements, hopes to create a “family-friendly” environment so that our birth rate will increase beyond the current 1.29. The replacement level is 2.1.

You can read about the measures in the Straits Times here.

They include bigger tax breaks, more protection for pregnant women in employment (a concern of many finally addressed), more childcare centres in the heartlands and longer maternity leave. It is obvious that the Government has been thinking long and hard about the issue and should be applauded for coming up with the measures.

However, one wonders if enhancements to the same incentives will work.

A different approach

Whilst the new incentives will surely increase the current procreation rate, I think it may not achieve the desired goal of increasing the procreation rate back to 2.1, which is the population replacement ratio.

I suggest a different approach to procreation, which may not cost the Government any additional funding.

From a statistical perspective, lower-educated women and lower-income households have always, and even now, tend to have higher procreation rates than higher-educated women and higher-income households.

Therefore, the new, and past incremental enhancements to various similar incentives, which may be skewed towards encouraging more educated and higher-income women to have children, may not be very effective.

For example, tax rebates of up to $70,000 can only be used by couples who pay tax, and about 70 per cent of workers hardly pay any income tax. The third and now fourth month’s maternity leave paid by the Government may utilise more state funding to those who need it least, and these people are also thus consequently not incentivised by the incentive. To illustrate this, a mother earning $20,000 a month will cost the Government $40,000, whereas one earning $800 will cost it $1,600. For someone earning $20,000, the incentives may not be necessary or attractive and thus may not be as motivated as those earning less. I suggest that the current funding for maternity leave be divided by the total number of babies born in a year, such that the payout will be a fixed amount, regardless of the mother’s income.

Make incentives education and income neutral

I believe one of the main reasons for the success of the Nordic countries is that incentives are neutral, and not dependent on the women or family’s income or education.

Another example is the baby matching grants. Some lower-income families may not have the money to contribute in order to continuously receive matching grants.

Last year’s slight increase in procreation to 1.29 may be due to the increase in the percentage of babies borne by foreign mothers to 35 per cent. If we take into account permanent resident (PR) mums, the procreation rate of Singaporeans may be even lower.

Anecdotally, it appears to suggest that foreign and PR mums are more likely to be stay-at-home mums, relative to Singaporean mums.


In this connection, I understand that none of the new enhanced incentives may apply to stay-at-home mums.

Further, it seems that the new slew of measures include one which may be perceived as discriminatory to Singaporeans. As TOC reader gtiong pointed out, and stated on the ecitizen website :

The amount of benefits that a child who converts to Singapore citizenship will obtain will be pro-rated according to the date of conversion.

This means that Singaporeans like gtiong, whose baby will be born in December 2008 while the new measures will only kick in in January 2009, will miss out on the incentives – unless they are pro-rated like those for ‘converted-to-Singaporeans” babies currently.

Housing policy

Perhaps one area which the Government should look at more closely is its housing policies.

One of the reasons why couples may not want to have babies may be because of the daunting prospect that they’d be taking care of the new-borns themselves. Of course, as parents, that is how it should be. Nonetheless, any kind of support is welcome. Would it thus be possible to further tailor our housing policies to encourage families to live together?

Presently, the Housing and Development Board (HDB) gives housing grants to those who live near their parents, even for singles. In March this year, it announced a new “higher-tier” Singles Grant of $20,000 for singles who buy a HDB resale flat in order to live with their parents. According to the Straits Times, the subsidy is “to encourage children to look after their parents while helping them get a bit further up the property ladder.”

Could a similar grant be implemented – that is, a grant for couples who choose to have babies and live with their parents? This is to encourage parents to live with their children who wish to have kids and to provide the couple a certain level of security and support for when they consider having children. After all, if using grants to encourage singles to take care of their parents can be implemented, why not a grant to encourage families to live together, on the condition that the younger couple have children within a year or two, say?

In order to allow the couple to have their independence, such a policy should stipulate that the parents can after, say, six years apply for a new HDB flat on their own with enhanced Government subsidies, leaving the new parents to go back to their own lives. The subsidies can then be the reward for the grandparents for helping their children care for the babies. (The PM said in his National Day Rally speech that the first six years of a child’s life are the most important and many parents would agree.) Perhaps we should look at having and caring for children as being more than a couple’s job. We should take a broader view of it being a family endeavour — that it takes a village to raise a kid, so to speak.

Learning from history

Historically, measures like the graduate mother and HOPE schemes may have not been very successful, because they may be relying on the wrong rationale — that we should encourage more educated women to have children, and less educated women less — through measures such as the ligation incentives under the HOPE scheme.

The above suggestions may seem like a radical change to our procreation policies, but they do not cost the Government more, as they simply shift the balance to equalising incentives to become education and income neutral.

In our view, unless we encourage those who statistically, traditionally and historically, produce more children, i.e. the lower-educated, lower-income and stay-at-home mums, and broaden the view of what it takes nowadays to have and care for children, incremental enhancements to the same incentives may not produce the quantum leap required to bring the procreation rate back to 2.1.


Picture from Channel NewsAsia


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

联合国:东南亚有组织跨国犯罪猖獗 执法不彰

联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室(UNODC)揭露,东南亚区域跨国犯罪集团猖獗,手脚快过执法单位反应,加上贪腐和边境管制宽松等问题,已然危害区域公共安全和永续发展。 UNODC昨日(18日)在泰国曼谷,公布2019年“东南亚跨国组织犯罪:演变、成长和影响”报告,指以香港、澳门、台湾、泰国为根据地的东南亚跨国犯罪集团,势力日益壮大。 近年来,由于东南亚及邻近区域开展执法活动,该地区的大型走私犯罪团伙改变策略,将其窝点转移至边境等监管薄弱的地区。 报告指跨国犯罪集团每年靠著越来越多的毒品、假冒商品与药物买卖,以及人口贩运、野生动物与木材走私等,赚进数以百亿计美元。 其中合成毒品(synthetic drugs)成为东南亚最赚钱的非法生意。有组织犯罪集团创新他们的经营模式扩张冰毒(methamphetamine)市场,带来每年614亿美元的收益,比2013年的150亿美元高出许多。其中三分之一销往澳大利亚、日本、新西兰和韩国。 透过港、新银行洗白 由缅甸、泰国、老挝三国边境地区组成的金三角仍旧盛产海洛因,每年创收约100亿美元(约136亿新元)。 迅速扩张且管理不佳的赌场,成了犯罪集团轻松洗钱的工具,也有部分犯罪收益透过新加坡和香港的正式银行系统洗白。 UNODC称,所有组织犯罪中,毒品走私最危险、获利最丰厚,也是跨国犯罪集团发展壮大的根基。报告指,以中国、香港、泰国和澳门为据点的大型犯罪集团和金主,与来自台湾的犯罪网络以及制毒师合作,成为东南亚制造和贩运冰毒及其他毒品的主力。

SAF to introduce enhanced measures; defers all non-operations-essential In-Camp-Training and closing Fitness Conditioning Centres till 30 April

The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has announced on Tuesday (31 March) that…


新加坡总理李显龙,今日(8日)早上11时许,在新加坡中央医院接受第一剂辉瑞疫苗接种,以向国人展示疫苗有效和安全。 他也是首位接种疫苗的内阁成员。今早随同总理接种疫苗的,还包括卫生部医药服务总监麦锡威副教授,以及88名中央医院的前线医疗人员。包括公共医院、社区医院和综合诊所等公共医疗机构的医疗人员,将从今日起开始接种疫苗。 他分享,接种疫苗后“未感到不适”,也强调注射疫苗是无痛、有效且重要的。他在接种后接受半小时观察,以了解是否出现不适、过敏情况,所幸一切良好。 总理也放眼从2月开始可让年长者接种,随后轮到其他国人和长期居民等。 尽管接种疫苗属自愿性质,但总理强调,接种疫苗是免费的,乃是保护家人、保护社区安全,他也对疫苗有信心和保持乐观。 总理是在去年12月14日,宣告政府拨款超过10亿元,以采购冠病19疫苗。他和内阁同僚将尽早接种冠病疫苗,以证实疫苗是安全。政府将优先为医疗保健工作者、前线人员、年长人士和一些弱势群体接种疫苗,才陆续到其他人士,目标是在明年底,让所有自愿接种的民众,都可注射疫苗。