~ By Ghui ~

The mantra that we are not producing enough babies is one that the government is consistently repeating. This incessant rhetoric has been used to justify the need for more foreigners. Indeed one poor girl was even publicly shamed by former minister Lee Kuan Yew for her singlehood in the name of 'Singaporeans not producing enough children' ("Former PM Lee to PhD student: Do you have a boyfriend?", The New Paper, 6 Sep 2011).

Applying this logic, it would appear that the Singapore government is desperate for babies. This would also explain why there are a slew of benefits to encourage Singaporeans to have children. Given that the government is frequently lamenting our low birth-rate, it might be high time we examine the implications of some of the government’s policies vis-à-vis the birth-rate.

From the “Stop at Two” policy to the “Graduate Mother Scheme”, Singapore is certainly no stranger to trying to reshape our birth-rate patterns. However has any of it worked? On the face of it, it would seem not. The “Stop at Two” policy has contributed to our low birth-rates while the “Graduate Mother Scheme” was seen as elitist social engineering. However, have we learnt from this?

System that is prejudiced against unmarried mothers

Going back to first principles, the government’s intention is presumably to encourage Singaporeans who can support a family adequately to have children. Why is it then that children born to single (unmarried) women do not get the same benefits as those who are born to married parents? Perhaps there is a perception that single (unmarried) mothers will be a burden to the state? However, that misconception does not hold weight because Singapore is not a welfare state! Besides, why the assumption that single mothers are not financially stable?

Another common assumption is that children without a “complete” family would somehow be less functional than one from a so called “complete” family. However, how can we define “complete”? Surely a loving home is what shapes the well being of all children and a single parent home can be just as loving as the home of a “complete” family.

Unmarried women do not qualify for Parenthood Tax Rebates, nor do they qualify for HDB flats (see Eligibility to buy new HDB flats). HDB has deemed it fit to restrict the family nucleus to the narrow confines of spouse, parents and siblings and children under the applicant’s legal custody, care and control (for widowed/ divorced). Are children born out of wedlock not fit to be family such that they do not even deserve to be a part of the family nucleus?

Proponents of the status quo might argue that the government cannot be seen to encourage children born out of wedlock but this logic is flawed because something can only be an incentive if it betters a particular group’s position over another’s. The government will only be encouraging children born out of wedlock if it gives unwed mothers more benefits than other mothers.

Same tax paid but different benefits received

Tax rebates and HDB flats are funded by our collective taxes. As such, any tax payer should be given equal access to such benefits. The government might be morally against the idea of illegitimate children but there has to be a distinction between subjective morality and the secular administration of the state.

The running of the state has to be objective. Singapore wants Singaporeans who have the means to have children. It is therefore a question of fact and not a question of subjective moral inclinations. If a working unmarried tax paying Singaporean mother has a child, she must be eligible for the same benefits as a married, divorced or widowed working tax paying mother.

Before repeating the oft cited blanket excuse of morality, let’s take a step back and examine what morality really means in this instance. What problem are we trying to solve? Is it to punish unmarried mothers and their offspring or is it to prevent a floodgate of unmarried mothers that will “erode the social fabric of Singapore”? If it is the latter, the reasoning is flawed at best because women will only be “encouraged” to have children out of wedlock if they are getting extra benefits for doing so. I think we are in no danger of that!

Even the “punishment” argument is flawed for it comes from the standpoint that unmarried mothers are “fallen” women who have dared to have premarital sex. What generation do we live in? Do we really believe that people do not engage in premarital sex? Besides, what about the men? Why do they get off scot-free?

So, people have sex and the result of that is that sometimes, women fall pregnant. At times, people will get married as a result of that pregnancy and at other times, for diverse reasons, they do not. By denying unmarried mothers the same benefits accorded to their married counterparts, are we suggesting that these women have abortions then? What kind of hypocritical morality is that? Despite being pro-choice, I can see that the sanctity of life trumps the illusionary niceties of picture perfect family units.

Only the children suffer as a result

The point is, children born out of wedlock is a factual occurrence which we cannot ignore. Whatever our subjective moral inclinations, is it right to punish the children born out of wedlock for their mother’s supposed “sins”? Is it for society to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate children as if somehow legitimate children are superior? In actuality, that is the end result of our current laws – to stigmatise illegitimate children when all children are supposed to be born on a clean slate, untainted.

Mothers (whether  they are married or not) and their children must be treated equally. This is not an issue about morality but of fairness. If you pay tax, you deserve the benefits that come with the taxes. I am not suggesting that tax paying unmarried mothers get more, merely that they get the same as their tax paying counterparts.


Headline photo courtesy of Examiner.com

__________________________

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

检测呈阴性反应 无疫情症状 首批钻石公主号乘客下船

在检测结果呈现阴性反应后,停泊在横滨港附近水域的钻石公主号乘客,终于在今天开始分批下船,并预计会在周五结束。 该被称为“海上小武汉”的游轮,已经爆发了最少542宗武汉冠状病毒确诊病例,令日本在检疫安排方面面临越来越多的批评。 首批下船乘客中,不愿透露姓名的77岁日本乘客在受访时表示,“我解脱了……我只想好好的休息”。 乘客们拖着行李下船后,登上已经在等待的黄点巴士以及数十辆出租车,准备被送往全球各地。 部分乘客在下船时,还向船上的乘客招手致意,船上也有乘客在阳台上挥手送行。 对于检测呈阴性反应后,被允许下船的500名乘客而言,这个煎熬的14天检疫隔离期已经结束了。这期间,他们原本的梦想之旅成为了噩梦,而在许多情况下,他们都被限制在无窗的客舱内,过着无聊的生活。 一名乘客Yardley Wong在和6岁的孩子等待下船期间,也在推文上发文分享快乐之余,也感谢船员们的支持。 #day15 #disembark this is…

加班工酬纠纷 五名巴士司机状告新捷运

五名巴士司机分别状告本地巴士业者新捷运(SBS Transit),指责后者违反加班工酬条款,支付不足工酬。 Carson律师楼律师拉维(M RAVI),在上周五代表上述巴士司机提呈传讯令状,内容有关这些起诉人指控该公司“违反合同上的加班费条款,且支付不足薪酬”。 律师拉维认为,有关诉讼也将探讨有关雇佣合同在休息日和加班工酬方面,是否涉及违反《雇佣法》。 至于新捷运企业沟通副主席Tammy Tan则在昨晚向本社证实,上述五名巴士司机经由Carson律师楼提呈的诉状,并正与律师商讨,有意针对相关指控进行辩护。 这些司机已在该公司任职三至10年不等。在上周五提呈的诉状中,也提及其中四名司机,曾向推事庭提呈类似的诉讼。尽管在今年7月和八日,出席了两次与国家交通工友联合会(NTWU)和康福德高的会谈,不过他们认为控诉和报告未受到重视。 原告也申诉到劳资政纠纷调解联盟(TADM),也被转介给职工总会(NTUC)。不过基于没有得到“结论性的答复”,他们向新捷运发函,要求解释每月薪资明细。 “尽管当时新捷运同意这些司机在两日后回函,不过此后没有再收到任何回复,于是他们再向新捷运连发四封追问邮件。” 诉状中提及的控诉,包括原告指责他们被预期在休假日之前,可以“连续7日工作无休”,这不符合双方同意的聘任书,故此可能违反《雇佣法》36条,即员工理应每周获得休息日,或者值班超过30小时理应获休假。 原告也指控被要求“每周工作超过44小时”,也违反《雇佣法》规定的法定工时。…

Facebook does have its own set of rules to safeguard against false content

As the saga in relation to the HIV data leak in Singapore…

三名被指资助恐怖主义印尼籍女佣 昨日被控上法庭

上月,三名印尼籍女佣被指有意参与伊斯兰国组织(ISIS)圣战和资助恐怖主义,遭当局援引内安法令拘留,昨日(23日)被控上法庭。 三人分别为33岁的阿宁迪亚(Anindia Afiyantari)、36岁的列诺(Retno Hernayani)和31岁的图米妮(Turmini),在本地已工作约6至13年。 他们均在今年9月受到内部安全局调查,认为涉及资助和恐怖活动有关联的海外机构,而当局也援引内部安全法对他们发出拘捕令。 在2018年,他们接触到有关伊国组织的资讯而被激化,并参与亲ISIS的社交媒体群组或频道,接触炸弹袭击、斩首等暴力内容和视频。他们也受到诸如Aman Abdurrahman和Usman Haidar bin Seff等极端印尼传教士的影响。 根据内政部发出的文告指出,商业事务局在侦查过程中发现,三人均在2018年9月至2019年7月期间,多次收取与提供资金给印尼人士,因此有合理理由相信,这些资金将用于推动海外的恐怖主义行为。 三人分别在不同时间对恐怖主义进行资助,列诺在2019年3月至4月间共收取100元,同时间亦两次提供共140元;其次阿宁迪亚则在2019年的2月至7月期间,五次提供共130元;图米妮则是在2018年9月至2019年5月期间,5次提供共1216元。…