S'pore's ideal population: How about 30 million?

By Eddie Lee

WHEN former senior civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow spoke candidly about policy mistakes in his speech to the Economic Society of Singapore last week, it reminded me of another occasion when one of the most famous economists of the 20th century, Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, made a frank admission.

In an interview with the Financial Times half a year ago, he conceded that he was mistaken in his belief that the supply of money was the key determinant of economic growth and inflation. Where he used to advocate that governments needed to ensure a stable and adequate supply of money in order to sustain growth, he now admitted that it 'had not been a success'. 'I'm not sure I would push it as hard as I once did,' he said.

In the early 1980s, many countries set targets for money-supply growth. The common aim was to bring down inflation. There was some success: inflation did ease during the 1980s, but it came at the cost of high unemployment. Governments eventually gave up. Not only did it prove difficult to hit the target, but there was also no way to predict accurately its influence on the economy even when the target was hit.

The preference today is to set a target for the rate of inflation. The belief is that a low and stable inflation rate is conducive to long-term economic growth. That's why central banks get paranoid when the inflation rate starts to rise.

Economists, as Mr Ngiam noted, are forever searching for that holy grail of equilibrium. It has proved elusive because the workings of an economy are rich in complexity.

To my mind, one factor that Mr Friedman didn't consider, and which Mr Ngiam brushed side, is an economy's population.

It has not always been that way. In the 18th century, economist Thomas Malthus thought it a key factor. He observed that while technological progress did improve living standards by raising productivity, that improvement was only temporary. Technological progress triggered faster population growth, which brought income levels back to subsistence levels.

Indeed, until the 19th century, economic history saw little improvement in living standards. The introduction of high-yielding crops and new technologies in agriculture was accompanied by vast increases in population, with little or no increase in living standards.

Income gaps between countries were fairly small, and even by the early 19th century, the 'advanced' European countries enjoyed real income levels only about double those found in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Then came the Industrial Revolution. Rapid technological change led to both an increase in the population and living standards. The Malthusian trap was sprung, at least among the industrialised economies, and population pressure was no longer seen as a barrier to rising living standards.

Developing countries like Singapore, however, still worried about the adverse effects of population growth even in the 1960s. Hence its stop-at-two population policy. Today, Singapore is into the information age. Technological change is accelerating but, like in many developed economies, its population will start to decline.

What does the crystal ball say?

Accelerated technological change promises faster growth. On the other hand, a shrinking population will reduce growth. Raising the average level of education, as Mr Ngiam and many others suggest, could counter the shrinkage in population.

But is that enough in the information age? China and India are abundant in human capital, not just because they have a larger population, but also because they have entered what demographers call the demographic 'gift' phase, which is characterised by a rapid increase in the proportion of the population that is of working age.

The more advanced countries of East Asia, like Singapore, witnessed such a phase from the mid-1960s to mid-1990s when the ratio of workers to dependents leapt from around 1.3 to 2.1.

Such an increase took nearly a century in the Western countries, but Asia took a shorter time because infant mortality dropped dramatically thanks to medical science. This 'gift' is now passing to countries like China and India.

Where Singapore is concerned, education can only 'upgrade' its human capital so far. The only other alternative is to increase its population pool - rapidly. What is the magic number - four, five, six million? Actually, these may not even come close.

Suppose the current support ratio of 10 is the ideal one, that is, 10 working-age adults to every dependent aged over 65 years. This expected to fall to three by 2025. How many Singaporeans should there be in 2025 to keep it at 10?

Here's a clue. Like Singapore, South Korea has one of the fastest ageing populations in the world, with a potential support ratio projected to fall to four by 2025 from 12.6 in 1995. According to the United Nations, in order to maintain South Korea's potential support ratio at 12.6, it would be necessary to have a total of around 400 million immigrants from 1995 through to 2025 to add to the indigenous population.

Under this scenario, South Korea needs a total population of 523 million in 2025. Its current population? Just 50 million. You do your own guesstimates for Singapore.

Don't ask me why, but when i first read the title of this thread i thought of Hitler and his genocide. Culling people so the population will become 'ideal'? Haha. But now that i've actually read the article...

And didnt Hitler ask the german ppl to procreate more often in order to ensure the continued dominance of the pure race? :D

I remember growth estimates Singapore's population reaching up to 5 million plus by 2040. By then we will need to develop more areas for housing.

I think the noncitizen:citizen ration would increase too and society will become even more diverse.

Originally posted by RafflesCity

I think the noncitizen:citizen ration would increase too and society will become even more diverse. Yeah.....25% of our people here are already non-Singaporeans. It wont be too long before it hits more then 50%! ;)

The idea is a little scary, IMHO. I mean, outsiders everywhere! I'm not xenophobic and all but, personally, i'd prefer to have people i'm familiar with around me. At least i know we have the same 'blood'.

Originally posted by EyeToEye

The idea is a little scary, IMHO. I mean, outsiders everywhere! I'm not xenophobic and all but, personally, i'd prefer to have people i'm familiar with around me. At least i know we have the same 'blood'. No wonder you think of Hitler...hahaha!!

I dont know, but I wont mind abit of unfamiliarity if they can bring a beautiful mix to our society, which is mcuh too conformative as of now?

I too appreciate the diversity that the foreigners bring. It will help create a true cosmopolitan feel. However I dont like the idea of these foreigners coming here and not respecting the laws for cleanliness etc.

btw does the 25% include manual workers and domestic maids? I'm interested to know the breakdown of the foreign nationalities here:cheers:

I agree totally with the diversity thing. It'll definately add colour to our already wonderful city and let's not forget the contributions they bring too. But 50% is a lot!! :dizzy:

Originally posted by EyeToEye

I agree totally with the diversity thing. It'll definately add colour to our already wonderful city and let's not forget the contributions they bring too. But 50% is a lot!! :dizzy: Well, then shall we all start mass procreating then? Im all for it!! :D

Originally posted by huaiwei

Well, then shall we all start mass procreating then? Im all for it!! :D

diao.... O_o#

With whom, may i ask?

Wasnt the Singapore government interested in using artificial techniques? Remember reading it somewhere and I know this is one topic the government pays attention to. Family campaigns are also their latest push.

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Wasnt the Singapore government interested in using artificial techniques? Remember reading it somewhere and I know this is one topic the government pays attention to. Family campaigns are also their latest push.

It doesn't seem very successful to me. Maybe i just haven't seen enough yet.

Originally posted by EyeToEye

diao.... O_o#

With whom, may i ask? Hmm...with whoever who shares my views? :D

hrmmm to have 30 million the average building would have to be 7.5 times higher??? so ummm the height limit will have to be raised to ummmm 1500m and the average apartment will have to be 90 stories

Singapore does not have the capacity to hold a population about eight times that of now, and with an aging population, reaching a population of a medium sized country would not be very possible, agree?

And I don't think Seoul will reach a population of half a billion, imagine, a tenth of the world in a city? The earth can only support so many people, and if human population continues to rise, all our resources will be depleated before 2500.

Btw, the article did not take the young dependants into consideration.:D

maybe by then we'll all depend on hydrogen fuel cells and not fossil fuels anymore.. and we wont / will hard use real diamonds - only those moissanite thingies or whatever.. or ashes of our dead friends/ relatives / family ... and um.. instead of steel use some carbon thingy. yeah.. how many people could we support then?

Who ever said we have to live above ground all the time? ;)

because we want view?

Originally posted by heirloom

because we want view? What sort of view you think we gonna have if there are 100 story blocks all over the island? ;)

we have view of the road 100 storeys down :) that's gorgeous too isnt it...

intresting article..i am a big fan of Milton Friedman but maybe IMF has taken the low inflation-issue of developing countries to much.

:)

Originally posted by heirloom

maybe by then we'll all depend on hydrogen fuel cells and not fossil fuels anymore.. and we wont / will hard use real diamonds - only those moissanite thingies or whatever.. or ashes of our dead friends/ relatives / family ... and um.. instead of steel use some carbon thingy. yeah.. how many people could we support then?

We'll never use Hydrogen, its just to dangerous, Singapore may become a big Hindenburg waiting to explode.:D

Maybe Singapore could use Solar Energy?
Since waves, geothermal, wind are all out of the question.

Nuclear, Singapore would not use it.

Hmm... Imagine the Striats of Singapore covered with glassy solar panels...wow...

nonono! dome singapore with solar panels and aircondition the insidE!!! yay:D

Originally posted by heirloom

nonono! dome singapore with solar panels and aircondition the insidE!!! yay:D

That would be pretty inefficient, wouldn't it. I mean, the air conditioning alone would use up almost all, if not all of the power produced.

Well, heirloom has a weakness for the air-con;)

dont we all?

Not now, at least where I am. Whole city is like a freezer that you cant turn off. Ahh I miss the evenings in Singapore (not too hot):D

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Not now, at least where I am. Whole city is like a freezer that you cant turn off. Ahh I miss the evenings in Singapore (not too hot):D 3

Where staying you is? I miss winter, though....

Gee....once again people seem to like watever weather they currently arent having? :D

because natural climate is never perfect ;) must be human regulated. it's always either too cold or too hot.

Originally posted by heirloom

because natural climate is never perfect ;) must be human regulated. it's always either too cold or too hot. Gee....the people of the past must be so sad....:D

Everybody is so sad.... :(

This discussion reminds me of my brother who lives in a rather cold climate. His motto is: "it's not too hot until you have to light a fire to cool down"

I mean.. hmmm, isn't that a little overkill? :)

Originally posted by Jo

This discussion reminds me of my brother who lives in a rather cold climate. His motto is: "it's not too hot until you have to light a fire to cool down"

I mean.. hmmm, isn't that a little overkill? :)

Very much so, yes.

The absent Singaporean

IT IS a perverse law. The world's population, which is about 6.33 billion now, is projected to grow to 7.8 billion by 2025. Most of the growth will take place in the developing world, that is, in many of those countries that are least equipped to support the new numbers. By contrast, the populations of many developed countries are expected to shrink over the next two decades, threatening their ability to maintain labour forces, raise sufficient taxes from the working population and, ultimately, preserve their standard of living. Combine that prospect with an ageing population, and the conclusion is a frightening one. Just how frightening was suggested by Mr Erik R. Peterson and Mr Jay C. Farrar of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Today, they told a conference here recently, there are 30 pension-eligible elders in the developed world for every 100 working-age adults. By the year 2040, there will be 70. In some countries - Italy, Japan and Spain - projections suggest that the number will be 100 by the year 2040: one pension-eligible person for every working-age adult. How, they asked, could the social welfare systems of Western Europe be sustained in the face of ageing societies? The question is a pertinent one for other affluent societies as well.

Given these stark realities, it should be logical for those in poorer countries to opt to have fewer children - to preserve the little that they have - and for those in richer countries to produce more children to sustain what they have. But the reality is very different. All around the world, people live as if there is no tomorrow. The poor, accustomed to scarcity, do not appear to care what happens to the next generation. The rich, anxious to protect their living standards, do not seem to understand that their children would not enjoy the same if their numbers fell sharply. Some of them take children out of the equation - by not having any - thereby worsening an already bad problem for their societies. This is why absent Singaporeans - those who are not being born - featured in Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's Chinese New Year message last week. In spite of incentives, there were just 41,451 births in 2001 and 40,864 in 2002, when Singapore needs at least 50,000 births a year to sustain economic, defence and other manpower needs.

Perhaps this is nature's revenge on inequality. The poor increase their numbers even as the rich decrease theirs, thus making the world a little more egalitarian for those who have no way of choosing whether to be born in sub-Saharan Africa or in Singapore. But nature is of little comfort to policy-makers who must try to keep Singapore going. However, there is a problem with what governments can actually do. A New York Times article on Mexico in 1999 quoted a mother who bore 14 children in 25 years. 'I know the government tells everybody to have fewer now, but I think it's none of their business,' she said. Singaporeans would, by and large, disagree that their having more babies is none of the Government's business, but not enough of them seem to be listening to its message, sweetened though it is with incentives. Ultimately, perhaps, the answer lies in nature. Having children, bringing them up and watching them as they overtake one's hopes and dreams - this is the reward that parenthood brings. Ultimately, children are their own justification. What they mean or do not mean for the economy comes afterwards. This is true in the poorest countries as in the richest. Maybe, some of the wisdom of the poor will rub off on Singapore's rich.

i imagine one day there will be children farms. so people can concentrate on enjoying themselves and their career without having to worry about children. just need to pay tax to support the farms.

Originally posted by heirloom

i imagine one day there will be children farms. so people can concentrate on enjoying themselves and their career without having to worry about children. just need to pay tax to support the farms. Unless the govt dont step in and buy up all your chickens to have them culled. ;)

aiyah..whats happening in Singapore is typical of developed cities I i magine. No wonder the government is throwing its doors open for new migrants.

Originally posted by RafflesCity

aiyah..whats happening in Singapore is typical of developed cities I i magine. No wonder the government is throwing its doors open for new migrants. Not realy leh....there has been alot of bad press about folks who cant get citizenship, like one poor chap who has no citizentry at all despite being born and raised here, and having served NS I think?

huh? no citizenship serve ns for wad??! eek so weird.. children are not chickens?

Originally posted by heirloom

children are not chickens? What the fish are you talking about?? :?

Originally posted by huaiwei

What the fish are you talking about?? :?

??? What the horse dung is going on?

huh :?:? i said i imagine there would be farms to grow children ---- then huaiwei quoted and said something about chickens ----- so i replied and said children are not chickens? or am i very very confused?

Originally posted by heirloom

huh :?:? i said i imagine there would be farms to grow children ---- then huaiwei quoted and said something about chickens ----- so i replied and said children are not chickens? or am i very very confused?

Huh? I still don't understand. Maybe i should read the whole thread one more time... ;)

Couple from HK proud to help raise S'pore's average

I AM writing in response to Mr Ngiam Tong Dow's exhortation, 'Go for quality, not just numbers' (ST, Jan 21).

I was a Hong Konger who came to Singapore in 1995 under the Landed Permanent Resident Scheme. Like Mr Ngiam said, I promptly bought a Housing Board resale flat but the similarity stopped here. My family and I quickly took up Singapore citizenship when the first opportunity arose. Before we sold our resale flat in November last year - at a loss! - we proudly moved into our new Punggol flat which we bought directly from the Housing Board as citizens.

Now, all the members of our family sing the National Anthem and say The Pledge every day, two as students and two as teachers. With three bachelor's degrees and a master's shared between my wife and I, we should be able to help pull up the average, not just add to the numbers.

I believe that there are even more exceptions to the sweeping statement made by Mr Ngiam regarding the Hong Kongers who came to Singapore before 1997.

RAYMOND CHAN FUI

Money can't buy love...

By Eddie Lee

GLOBAL TRENDS


NOR babies. Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong admitted as much a week ago: 'We have all these procreation incentives - but still the number of babies has been going down. So this is a very clear problem.' Singapore's fertility rate is likely to have fallen below 1.3 last year. The predicament is that the answer to the lack of babies isn't in a purely economic solution.

It is clear the Government is already moving away from a monetary approach to increasing births. In 2002, for example, the Ministry of Community Development and Sports announced a 'new operating philosophy' to promote family-friendly workplaces. Last month, Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan called for a 'total' solution.

British sociologist Catherine Hakim argues that procreation policies should recognise that women are not a homogenous group, and such policies are most likely to succeed if they focus on women who are more interested in having children.

She believes that between 10 to 30 per cent of women are work-centred and have low fertility rates. Attention should instead be focused on women who prefer not to work because their priorities rest on their children, and the 'adaptive' women who prefer to structure work around their family responsibilities.

So home-care allowances, for example, will be more effective than increased childcare, which appeals mainly to work-centred women whose procreation rate is hard to budge.

Northern European countries have an extensive social support infrastructure and baby-friendly environment. Finland, for example, has a state-legislated maternity allowance of 105 weekdays, after which there is a parent's allowance for a further 158 days. On top of this, one of the parents is entitled to stay off work till the child reaches the age of three.

There appears to be some payoff. The fertility rates of Finland and other Nordic countries with extensive social welfare support are around 1.7, compared with southern European countries with less baby-friendly environments, like Italy and Spain, which have fertility rates of just 1.2.

But, despite extensive social support in the Nordic countries, it's not enough. Fertility rates remain below the replacement level of 2.1. Moreover, Ms Marit Ronsen from the Division of Social and Demographic Research in Norway notes, the positive effect of social support for babies is 'a hypothesis that is easier to postulate than to corroborate'. That's because it's hard to differentiate its impact from other factors that explain the gap in the fertility rates between northern and southern Europe.

A more individualistic lifestyle among northern Europeans, in contrast to southern Europeans who, like Singaporeans, retain 'traditional' family values, plays a role as well.

Southern Europeans stay with their parents while pursuing higher education. Getting a job before marriage, and buying a house, are considered necessary prerequisites for starting a family. This situation - where an action is dependent on a prior outcome - has resulted in each stage of events getting progressively postponed. So as the time to complete education and land a job lengthens, it translates into a delay in marriage, with detrimental effects on fertility.

In contrast, in northern Europe, premarital cohabitation is increasingly common with the consequence that premarital births partly compensate for the depressing impact of a rising marriage age on fertility. In other words, premarital cohabitation delays marriage but not parenthood.

Singapore society looks neither to be heading in this direction, nor would the Government think of encouraging such a change. Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stressed this clearly in his Chinese New Year message - the family is the core of all Singaporean values. 'Strong and stable families make a strong and cohesive society. Many of the ills in Western societies are linked to the weakening of family ties,' he said.

So in Singapore, the traditional 'family' ideal is reinforced by restrictions on the disbursement of childcare and maternity benefits. In Finland, social security is sufficiently high for a single mother not to need a husband to support her.

Given current social and economic trends, a decline in the population looks irreversible. We are left with a difficult choice to ameliorate this decline - immigration.

This can be quite effective as the United States example shows. The US is the only developed country with a fertility rate that is close to the replacement level. While people in the US resemble northern Europeans in lifestyle, they do not have the latter's extensive social welfare arrangements. However, the net migration rate in the US (3.5 migrants per 1,000 population) is significantly higher than northern Europe's (Finland's net migration rate is 0.63).

But a problem here, as we are finding out, is that it is difficult to resort to this palliative to a long-term problem (shortage of babies) when there's the immediate problem of unemployment. The short-term problem must be solved first, and fast.

Then there's the question of absorbing people from different cultures. Here, it's not just a matter of 'Singaporean-ising' them but also accepting to be 'de-Singaporean-ised' in the process.

When you can't just depend on money, there are no easy routes to take. A 'total' solution, however, will involve deeper questions of society that we'll have to face today.

Do more to help would-be mums, say ST readers

By Soh Wen Lin

FINANCIAL help for infertility treatment. Two years of maternity leave. More generous legal treatment of children from different marriages and those adopted from overseas. A more compassionate working environment. These were just some of the suggestions, on how the Government can help raise the birth rate here, sent by readers responding to the Insight feature, 'Taking Stork' (ST, Jan 31), on Singapore's falling birth rate.

Of the 38 responses which Insight and the Forum pages of The Straits Times received as of yesterday, about a quarter asked the Government to help infertile couples who resort to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment.

Reader Valentino Yap suggested that the Government allow infertile couples to use their Central Provident Fund savings to pay for IVF treatment, up to a reasonable limit. Each IVF treatment costs at least $8,000 and it usually takes a few attempts to succeed. Medisave, if used, covers less than half the cost of such treatments.

Said reader Sonya Gill: 'The medications and procedure are still very costly. Worse, it is not even subsidised. The IVF procedure is not a physical enhancement thing like liposuction. Why can it not be subsidised by the Government?' She also suggested that the adoption process for a foreign baby be made easier, since there were few local babies to be adopted. 'I have not seen the Government being helpful to this lot... The legal procedure takes nearly a year and all check-ups are charged at non-resident rates if the child is from abroad,' she said.

Another reader, Mr Lim Swe Guan, asked why the $20,000 tax rebate for the third and fourth child applied only if all siblings came from the same marriage. Said Mr Lim: 'In modern society, divorces and remarriages are common occurrences. Why then do we have a law that has the effect of discouraging babies being produced from remarriages?'

One couple, Mr Teo Wee Lien and Ms Heng Khee Swan, suggested that maternity leave be stretched to two years to make up for the scarcity of infant-care facilities. 'The company can provide a graduated scheme whereby the employee is paid a certain percentage of salary if she opts for a one-year maternity leave, and a lower percentage if she opts for longer leave,' they suggested. The Government can match what the employer pays during the leave while making sure to limit the payments to a certain ceiling.'

Several women also said that employers' attitudes needed to change. A reader identified only as Mrs Wong wrote that not only was the IVF process expensive and physically painful, but her boss also ticked her off when she returned to the office late after one round of IVF testing took longer than usual.

Ms Shannon Tan, who works in the hospitality industry and recently applied for a higher- paying post, was told by her superior that the company preferred someone who did not have young children so as to lower the risk of employees taking urgent leave. 'This is the discrimination I face at work,' said Ms Tan, who added that she was stopping at one child because of the family-unfriendly environment at her workplace.

Readers said that if changes were not made, the number of births would only decline further. Singapore had only 37,633 births last year, the lowest number in more than 25 years and far below the 50,000 annual birth rate needed to replace the population.

A series of four letters were writtern to the forum, offering contrasting views. See which one you are more agreeable with. ;)

More babies? Are ministries in step?

WHEN I gave birth for the first time in 1997, I had twins and I was given the standard eight weeks of maternity leave. When I became pregnant again the next year, I found to my shock that I would not be entitled to any maternity leave. At that time, women were entitled to maternity leave for their first two children, and so most would have been entitled to this benefit twice.

My 'mistake' was in having twins the first time round. It was very unfair. I wrote to my Member of Parliament, the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), and even the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware). Aware wrote independently to MOM to plead my case. Our reasoning fell on deaf ears. Incredibly, all I received was a reply suggesting that I should look to the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) for the standard working mothers' tax reliefs.

I was expected to cope with a newborn, in addition to two demanding year-old babies, without the much-needed and deserved paid maternity leave. If I were working and had another baby now, would I be denied maternity leave yet again? Am I entitled to maternity leave only once, for four babies?

Iras was nearly just as unsupportive. Because my third child was eventually born outside Singapore, I almost missed out on the Special Tax Rebate of $20,000, through no fault of mine. After having two carefully prepared appeals with supporting official documents rejected summarily by Iras, it finally took a threat to write to the Prime Minister himself and also The Straits Times before I was hastily granted the relief.

Though couples are being exhorted to have babies by no less a person than the Prime Minister, some ministries do not seem to be thinking and acting in the same spirit. In my experience, both MOM and Iras were unsupportive and inflexible and preferred to stick to the status quo. It is high time those in authority are given some power to review rules, keep up with the times, and be flexible in unique situations.

I have a master's degree but at 28 I gave up a promising career and a monthly income of $3,900 (excluding bonuses and stock options) to be with my children full-time. It is a long-term burden to provide them with an enriching upbringing and quality education, and we are totally dependent on my husband's single income. Our situation is hardly unique.

Here are some suggestions to boost the birth rate:

- Make the income-tax reliefs much more family-friendly. Whatever the original intentions, consider broadening the eligibility for Enhanced Child Relief so that either parent can claim. Ditto the Foreign Maid Levy, at least for larger families.

- Allow relief for children's courses - our three children's Chinese enrichment and swimming lessons alone cost us over $500 a month!

- Times have changed; the Wife Relief and Qualifying Child Relief at just $2,000 each - unchanged after more than a decade! - are hardly adequate anymore.

It does not make any sense that double-income families enjoy more tax reliefs and pay less at childcare centres than their much poorer single-income counterparts. It may have been an inducement to get mothers back into the workforce, but the insidious message I get is that the Government discriminates against stay-home mothers, at a time when more women feel the need to bring up their children themselves - at least during the formative years.

KOH GAIK JOO (MS)

Not having kids may be an act of consideration

I REFER to the Insight article, 'Taking Stork' (ST, Jan 31).

A thorough discussion on procreation is complete only if various issues concerning ideals and child-minding are resolved. Giving birth and contributing to fertility statistics is but the beginning. The media has often singled out married couples who are unwilling to give up their lifestyles as a significant cause of falling birth rates. This may be true for some, but there are deeper reasons which deter couples from having children.

One such reason is the sense of duty to look after their own children. For such couples, troubling their aged parents to take care of their children is not an option. Their sense of fairness leads them to conclude that their aged parents should not be burdened with two generations of child-caring, grandparents volunteering to look after grandchildren notwithstanding.

Knowing that they cannot cope with the demands of child-rearing and not wishing to trouble others, they decide not to have children. This is an act of consideration, certainly not selfishness. Are these couples any lesser than those who outsource child-minding and maintain their lifestyles?

Needless to say, since depending on aged parents is not an option, hiring maids is also out of the question because the same basic tenet of not outsourcing child-minding remains. For these couples, having one spouse quit his or her job to be a full-time parent could be the answer. Yet, what happens when the child grows up and the spouse wishes to re-enter the workforce? Would anyone be willing to employ him/her?

Another factor to consider is the risk of birth deformities, which correlates with a mother's age. As more and more women have children beyond their prime child-bearing years, the risk of giving birth to children with abnormalities and congenital disorders also increases.

Life is getting increasingly stressful and uncertain, with corporate restructuring, pandemics and terrorist attacks. There is a sense of powerlessness, that the next generation would inevitably face a more hostile world. Let all who have the courage and love to bring new lives into this world be celebrated; and let those who decide otherwise not be condemned.

LIM I-CHUN (MRS)

Love your children... without counting the cost

A RECENT estimate put the cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 at US$160,140 (S$275,440) for an American middle-income family. That doesn't even include college tuition. But US$160,140 isn't so bad if you break it down. It translates into US$8,896.66 a year, US$741.38 a month, or US$171.08 a week.

Still, you might think the best financial advice would be not to have children if you want to be 'rich'. However, the truth is just the opposite. What do you get for the US$160,140? The following is what I read somewhere:

Naming rights. Glimpses of God every day. Giggles under the covers every night. More love than your heart can hold. Butterfly kisses and Velcro hugs. Endless wonder over rocks, ants, clouds, and warm cookies. A hand to hold, usually covered with jam.

A partner for blowing bubbles, flying kites, building sand castles, and skipping down the sidewalk in the pouring rain. Someone to laugh yourself silly with, no matter what the boss said or how your stocks performed that day.

For US$160,140, you never have to grow up. You get to finger-paint, play hide-and-seek, and never stop believing in Santa Claus. You have an excuse to keep reading the Adventures Of Pooh and watching Saturday-morning cartoons, going to Disney movies, and wishing on stars...

For US$160,140, there is no greater bang for your buck. You get to be a hero just for retrieving a Frisbee off the garage roof, taking the training wheels off the bike, removing a splinter...

You get a front-row seat to history to witness the first step, first word, first date, and first time behind the wheel. You get to be immortal. You get another branch added to your family tree, and, if you're lucky, a long list of limbs in your obituary called grandchildren.

You get an education in psychology, nursing, criminal justice, communications, and human sexuality that no college can match.

In the eyes of a child, you rank right up there with God. You have all the power to heal a booboo, scare away the monsters under the bed, patch a broken heart, police a slumber party, ground them forever, and love them without limits, so one day they will, like you, love without counting the cost.

ERNEST TENG TYE JIN

Possible to raise a family on $3,000

SOME couples lament that they do not have enough money to start a family, thinking that they must provide richly for their children. This is not true.

The average household income in Singapore is about $3,000 and, at one stage, my family was getting by on that amount. We live in an HDB flat, my wife is not working and we have three children (Secondary 2, Primary 5 and Primary 3). The children do not have tuition but they are doing reasonably well.

It all boils down to a matter of choice. Many young married couples today aspire to own a car and a condo, besides going for overseas vacations - and that's where the problem lies!

Another popular reason many are not having children is the education system. There is just too much pressure on students. Educators need to do a rethink. Our children will grow up exam-smart but not necessarily street-smart!

JEREMY KOH LIANG SEN

Energy crisis 'will limit births'

As the world's reserves of oil and gas run out over the coming decades, the birth-rates of societies are likely to fall considerably, a US scientist says.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3465745.stm

very intresting article i may say..

:)

Hopefuly it also results in an increase in deaths? :D

Originally posted by huaiwei

Hopefuly it also results in an increase in deaths? :D

yeah
:D

It's about time for Singapore to build super-highrises and abolish the stupid 280m height restriction.

There should be flats 60 storeys tall ,like in Hong Kong.

that's right. move all the other airports to pulau ubin or tekong or somewhere else. they're gonna have to move sooner or later.. might as well move sooner.

Originally posted by heirloom

that's right. move all the other airports to pulau ubin or tekong or somewhere else. they're gonna have to move sooner or later.. might as well move sooner. But if the landing approach passes by any part of the city, the height restrictions still remain........

well obviously if they're gonna move the airports to offshore islands the landing approaches will have to be changed in a way that doesnt impede height of buildings...

I somehow dont think that will happen in our lifetime. Dont forget that Changi has a long term expansion plan through land reclamation.

Perhaps we will more likely stay at that rubbish dump on Pulau Sakeng than see the airport move:colgate:

mmm i meant the other airports.. not changi.. all those other airports scattered all over...

hmmm..there is Seletar airport and the rest are military airbases...I dont think so:devil:

hrmmm we'll see about it when i become prime minister...

:toilet:

yes.. my career as prime minister will be long and useful like toilet paper...

Originally posted by heirloom

hrmmm we'll see about it when i become prime minister... I would demand that the future PM serves NS in a combat vocation, in order to understand military sensitivities!!! :bash: :D

urhrmm i advise you not to suggest anything that provokes FUTURE PM.. he might put you behind barssss:devil:

Originally posted by heirloom

urhrmm i advise you not to suggest anything that provokes FUTURE PM.. he might put you behind barssss:devil: That might be possible if you happen to represent a communist or fully authoritarian party..........

my secret ambition is to rule the world...:eat:

Originally posted by heirloom

my secret ambition is to rule the world...:eat: But I tot thats an open secret fopr everybody else in the world too?

More kids, more ironies

Ask me about making babies and I say that before I can think of No. 3, I first need to get over my guilt about No. 1 and 2

By Clarence Chang

EVERY Valentine's Day in recent years, I inevitably get asked: Why aren't you and your wife trying for a third child? After all, our first-born was conceived in, of all places, Hawaii, on or about Feb 14, 1997.

It's a pertinent question after yet another plunge in Singapore's birth rates. Our honest answer? It's that four-letter word starting with 'F' - fear. Fear of parental failure. Fear of losing the joy of parenting and never getting it back. Fear that I might one day lose my connection with my two sons, who are both already growing up so fast, I beam and cringe at the same time.

Wouldn't I love to have a baby girl, a little sister for the two boys to play with and fawn over? Oh, you bet I would. But only if - a big if - I can confidently say I'll still be a good parent. For me, loving my kids and missing them every second we're separated just isn't good enough. As it stands, I believe I'm a pretty good father of one, but a not-so-good father of two. And most likely, a bad father of three.

That's the first of many ironies.

Irony No. 1: For starters, the more kids you have, the more you crave. But the harder it gets to maintain any semblance of a work-family life balance. Stress in or outside the home, I feel, is still the single biggest babyboom killer. I can't recall, for example, when I last enjoyed a really fun family outing without the pressures of work hanging over me.

And I can't agree more with counsellors who warn parents not to delude themselves and think just 30 minutes a day of 'quality time' with a child is all it takes. We're also living, mind you, in an era where you're reminded to be thankful just to hang on to your job; where you're expected to devote your heart and soul to your chosen profession, instead of your loved ones crying out for your presence.

Irony No. 2: The more kids you have, the more you dream of being a stay-at-home parent. Yet, with every child, it becomes more impossible to survive on anything less than a dual income.

For most middle-class families, it's simple mathematical truth. It's got everything to do with mortgages, child-care expenses, shrinking bank balances, and the unavoidable rise in the cost of living. It's also got nothing to do with huge egos, material greed or maintaining a lavish lifestyle.

Yet, quitting our jobs to become full-time homemakers after the baby is born is something many mothers and even fathers aspire to - like two recent studio guests-cum-Straits Times letter writers on Channel i's discussion programme, i On The News.

I admired and envied the two women for having the guts to live up to their parental responsibilities, despite the risk of being branded 'economically inactive' and frowned upon by certain quarters. But even they acknowledged it's not a practical option for most couples striving to put food on the table for multiple mouths.

Irony No. 3: The more kids you have, the more time you must set aside for each one of them. Yet, regrettably, as working parents, it means the more birthdays and milestones you'll miss - first word, first walk, first everything.

After all, how many times have we heard even supposedly 'pro-family' bosses fly off the handle when an employee needs time off for genuine family emergencies? Will we ever see the day when working parents aren't regarded as a liability or a nuisance?

Yes, longer maternity and paternity leave would be nice, but obviously, companies will never say yes. Not when slashing business costs remains the order of the day. So it's back to square one.

Irony No. 4: The more kids you have, the more crucial your role as their biological parent. But sadly, it means the more surrogate parents they end up having, as you're forced to relinquish your duties to maids, grandparents and other caregivers.

A case in point is my autistic son. Because of his irregular sleep patterns and my irregular work schedules, I hardly get to spend more than three to four waking hours with him - every week. Enough said.

Yes, it's a depressing picture I've painted, but I'm not telling policymakers anything they don't already know. It all boils down to the pace of life for young working couples, and what's expected of them as employees.

Just as workers today must wake up to, we're told, new wage or job realities, maybe it's time for population planners to wake up to new procreation realities, too. Can we de-link the two? Surely, when it comes to babies at home versus excellence at work, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Something's got to give.

And, let's face it, no one ever chooses to bring a child into this world out of a patriotic sense of 'national service' - no matter how desperate the country's needs, or how much you personally love kids. Even Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has admitted it's ultimately a 'personal' decision that can be swayed only so much by bigger baby bonuses, higher tax rebates, lower maid levies, cheaper infant care centres and other monetary incentives.

But far from regarding it as a losing battle - and short of resorting to more immigrants, overseas adoptions, or even recognising de facto relationships (read: babies born out of wedlock) - hats off, it must be said, to policymakers for keeping at it and trying to think outside of an invisible box. Like today's struggling parents, they have their work cut out for them.

As for me, I still yearn for Baby No. 3, and I haven't closed that door by any means. But each Valentine's Day that passes, that hope grows dimmer - with or without a trip to Hawaii.

Singapore tackles birth pains

Singapore is launching two new TV programmes to promote sex, in an effort to tackle its declining birth rate.

The programmes' host, Dr Wei Siang Yu, also known as Doctor Love, says he wants to educate the public in the "love, sex and baby strategy".

One show will give sex therapy, and in the other couples will compete to conceive, Dr Wei told the BBC.

Singapore has one of the world's lowest birth rates, with only 1.24 children born to each woman in 2003.

Dr Wei told the BBC World Service's World Today programme that the Dr Love Talk Show will invite people to come and share their "seduction strategy" and will include tips on massage, communication and sex life.

The Dr Love Super Baby Making Show will feature couples from around the world in competition to conceive first.

Dr Wei said that despite the sensational aspects of the shows, his fundamental motivation was to "edutain" - educate and entertain at the same time.

"Making babies is not all about sex. It's really about a lifestyle design. I think there's a certain lifestyle angle about it, on how to eat and what to exercise and how to manage your stress and how to have a healthy embryo," he said.

He said he hoped people would find it easier to absorb this information from the shows' "Sesame Street format" than from other media.

Dr Wei has tackled Singapore's plummeting birth rate before.

He founded a Sex in the Air campaign in 2002, during which teenagers too embarrassed to ask about sex could text doctors for information.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3492251.stm

Wow..even the BBC has picked up on the stories! :D

Originally posted by huaiwei

Wow..even the BBC has picked up on the stories! :D

oh dear..it will add to the bizarreness of Singapore's image abroad:moods:

hm,i get the fealing that you guys dont like BBC?:) ;)

there was soemthing about that in the los angeles times too. getting a bit embarrassing haha..

Originally posted by drwho

hm,i get the fealing that you guys dont like BBC?:) ;)

Not at all, for me it is very accurate and unbiased. Its just the British knack for telling it as it is sometimes does make Singapore seem like a peculiar oddity when seen through foreign eyes.:colgate:

Yes....especially when you look at a similar report from Singapore on the same topic! :D The British article sounds like its a govermental initiative, while this one clearly shows this guy is doing it at his own accord, potentially colliding with govt initiatives!

MY earlier exclaimation was actually coz if its reported by the BBC, then it means the issue has become "internationalised"! :D

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/health/view/71171/1/.html

15 February 2004 1416 hrs
'Dr Love' hopes to lift Singapore's birth rate with TV bathtub tutorials

SINGAPORE : Bathtub tutorials and a baby-making contest on television? Why not, says Singapore's self-styled sex guru, Wei Siang Yu, nicknamed Dr Love. As the island-state grapples with falling birth rates, the flamboyant medical doctor is preparing to launch a midnight television talk show which will feature bathtub tutorials, hoping it can rekindle passions and encourage couples to have more children.

Wei told AFP the programme will be launched in the second quarter of this year. This will be followed in the third quarter by a reality television programme called "Dr. Love superbaby making show" in which couples from different nationalities will compete to be the first to conceive.

Wei's unique efforts to fire up libidos come after repeated urgings from Singapore's leaders for the affluent state's population of four million people to reverse the nation's reproductive slow-down. The fertility rate fell to a historic low of 1.37 per woman in 2002 despite repeated government statements urging couples to procreate. This is well below the rate of 2.1 per woman which demographers say is necessary to replenish the population naturally.

"We will have people come and talk about their love lives and private lives. We will also talk about their strategies on love, basically allowing them to talk, listen, understand and analyse," Wei said of the TV talk show.

One of the programme's highlights will be the bathtub tutorials involving real-life couples and conducted by Dr. Love himself. "We will teach couples how to massage each other in a bathtub," said Wei, an Australian-educated doctor whose previous novel programmes to help ease the decline in the fertility rate have gained international publicity.

Wei said he did not foresee any conflict with the island's strict censorship laws as the tutorials will be carried out with decency by a trained medical professional. "We will not reveal the breast or the groin. Viewers will only see the back," he said. "This is not pornography, this is edu-tainment (education and entertainment)."

The baby-making contest will be launched in the third quarter of this year, said Wei, whose US-based company Meggpower.com is co-funded by American and Asian partners. "This is a reality TV show with 10 couples from all over the world competing in Singapore to make a baby," he said.

Couples will be given a time frame and will be judged on who will be the first one to report a conception. Dr. Love will closely monitor the couples' hormonal cycles and recommend changes in their diets to aid conception. Seduction strategies will also be featured. "It's like a baby race," he said.

Wei, who is unmarried, shot to the spotlight last year when he launched iDream, where couples finding it difficult to have children board a "love boat" for a luxury resort with the sole purpose of baby-making. The package, launched in April last year and costing up to 1,000 Singapore dollars (600 US) per night, includes sex counsellors on standby to advise the couples, fertility seminars aboard cruise boats as well as massage and aromatherapy.

Wei said Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) spoiled his business after only three months, as travel demand to Asia ground to a halt. He plans to re-launch the idea in March. Wei revealed plans to follow the "love boat" package with a "love plane" which will ferry couples to romantic hideaways in Asia with the same intention. This will be done through a tie-up with a regional airline.

An existing service where women receive mobile phone text messages to alert them ahead of their ovulation period, so they can make love during that time, is showing signs of success. Wei said he had received e-mails from some of the women saying they were already pregnant.

The doctor said a government programme giving cash incentives to encourage couples to have more children was inadequate. "Not everything can be addressed by a national kind of policy-making... money does not solve everything," he said. "Somebody has got to look at the emotions of people. It's about being happy and having some emotional actualisation as a person."

Wei said that through his programmes, couples can "feel more relaxed" and forget about everyday worries such as work and money. This, he says, sets them in the mood for love... and baby-making. - AFP

Oh my gosh.... baby making race?

omigod. that will be the first reality tv i'll have an interest in.

Well..in UK they have this tv-show called 'Love on a Saturday Night'.

A participant gets to know 3 contestants hidden by masks and has to pick one to go on a holiday.

so far we havent done that in Singapore yet;)

Originally posted by heirloom

omigod. that will be the first reality tv i'll have an interest in. But you cant engage in it yourself, eh? :D

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Well..in UK they have this tv-show called 'Love on a Saturday Night'.

A participant gets to know 3 contestants hidden by masks and has to pick one to go on a holiday.

so far we havent done that in Singapore yet;)

Ugh... these reality shows are really making me sick!

I guess the American Idol and Amazing Race series are okay, but Survivor, Temptation Island, Fear Factor etc.. Those are just bloody stupid and degrading!

Originally posted by EyeToEye

Ugh... these reality shows are really making me sick!

I guess the American Idol and Amazing Race series are okay, but Survivor, Temptation Island, Fear Factor etc.. Those are just bloody stupid and degrading! Actualy fear fector can be quite interesting too, for it often leaves me wondering how I would have reacted if I was the contestants! :D

Yeah well... it does encourage people to do silly things

Originally posted by EyeToEye

Yeah well... it does encourage people to do silly things But it does seem refreshing to watch angmos trying to use the chopsticks wat. :D

Originally posted by huaiwei

But it does seem refreshing to watch angmos trying to use the chopsticks wat. :D

:D

http://www.the-inncrowd.com/imagesbunkies030426/images/IMG00005_jpg.jpg

http://www.the-inncrowd.com/imagesbunkies030919/images/022_jpg.jpg

http://www.the-inncrowd.com/imagesbunkies030826/images/003_jpg.jpg

I have an angmoh friend whose chopstick-using skills are so fantastic he uses them to eat congee and can finish a small bowl in 5-10 minutes...

While I only remember having to teach my German friends how to use it on the top of the UOB! :D

Originally posted by EyeToEye

I have an angmoh friend whose chopstick-using skills are so fantastic he uses them to eat congee and can finish a small bowl in 5-10 minutes...

Thats impressive but why not use the spoon?!

Originally posted by huaiwei

While I only remember having to teach my German friends how to use it on the top of the UOB! :D

How did it turn out? hehe:D

Originally posted by RafflesCity

How did it turn out? hehe:D Oh...they basically gave up, and just wont stop staring at my "skills" in amazement....the thing is that I cant even hold chopsticks properly myself! :D

Expats here to stay? S'poreans don't buy it

Half the employment pass holders surveyed say they do want to sink roots; 7 in 10 locals feel otherwise

By M. Nirmala

CONTRARY to what most Singaporeans believe, many foreigners who come to Singapore to work say they do want to sink roots and settle here for good. The misperception of foreigners' intentions was a key finding of a survey reported in a recent book published by the Institute of Policy Studies.

In a survey of 400 Singaporeans, seven out of 10 said foreigners are here only for the economic benefits and have no commitment to Singapore. On the other hand, more than four in five of 501 foreigners interviewed said they hope to continue working in Singapore over the next five years, while more than half of the 301 employment pass holders interviewed had thoughts of becoming permanent residents.

The study, meant to measure how Singaporeans and foreigners relate to each other, was done in 2001 by National University of Singapore (NUS) associate professors Brenda Yeoh and Shirlena Huang. The dons declined to elaborate on their findings as the government agency that commissioned the study has only allowed a vetted version to be published in the book, titled Beyond Rituals And Riots. The agency did not want to be named.

The survey is probably the first large-scale study that looks at the level of integration between foreigners and Singaporeans. Using questionnaires, it looked at how the two groups viewed and interacted with each other in the neighbourhood, the workplace and in social settings. The levels of integration - in the markets and housing estates - were also not high. Expatriates preferred to live in expatriate neighbourhoods and not HDB estates. A majority do not go to wet markets to buy fresh meat and vegetables.

'While these observations are not entirely unexpected in the interactions between a 'host' majority and a 'guest' minority, it does indicate that large segments of Singaporeans have minimal or no social interaction of a discretionary nature with foreign talent,' noted the researchers. Sociologists and academics who study ethnicity and migration issues said the study is significant because it throws light on how, in the face of globalisation, citizens relate to the foreigners in their midst.

Previous reports had shown that Singaporeans frowned on expatriates as they were seen as people who took away jobs. NUS sociologist Tan Ern Ser said the foreign talent issue can become a potential problem if not handled well. 'If citizens resent foreign talent, it can be a source of social tension and it can also erode support for the Government,' he said. Singaporeans, the academics noted, usually develop close-knit networks when they are in school, national service and the office. This usually makes it difficult for the newly arrived expatriates to gain entry into.

Some expatriates like Madam Jenny Xu, secretary of the 1,000-strong Hua Yuan Association for expatriates from China, said they face a language barrier. 'A majority of Singaporeans are nice. But some are not friendly and will look down on us if we cannot speak English.' Mr Nicholas de Boursac, executive director of the American Chamber of Commerce, said his own experience has been largely positive. At the chamber, 30 per cent of its 1,500 members are Singaporeans.

Some Singaporeans go out of their way to help Americans settle into their new homes by taking them to local restaurants, encouraging them to try local dishes and introducing them to karaoke lounges and Chinese concerts, he said. 'I've been here for 12 years and Singapore is my second home.'

MIXING: AT WORK

TO FIND out the level of interaction between Singaporeans and foreigners, two National University of Singapore academics sent questionnaires to 400 locals and 501 foreigners who had lived here for at least a year. Here are some key findings.

Interaction in the office: There is mutual respect and general acceptance. Almost all the foreigners (95 per cent) said their local colleagues made them feel welcome and did not view them as unwelcome competition.

But there are underlying tensions. About 40 per cent of Singaporeans said that they expected their foreign colleagues to perform better in the office because of their foreign talent status. Half of the foreigners felt the pressure of these higher expectations, and this was more so with the non-Asians (75 per cent) than the Asians (47 per cent).

Although more than half of the foreigners interviewed (58 per cent) considered themselves buddies with Singaporeans, their positive view of the friendship was not widely shared by Singaporeans. Only 18.8 per cent of the Singaporeans considered foreign colleagues among their closest circle of friends at the workplace.

Social interaction: Not much interaction here. Foreigners prefer to live in areas where other expatriates live. They also do not do their marketing in wet markets.

About three in five foreigners said that they interacted frequently with Singaporeans. In contrast, two in five Singaporeans said they have not interacted informally with foreigners.

huaiwei> intresting article. :)
i dunno what can make the social interaction better.

integration is something Sweden is very bad at:/

Foreigners' second home

THE belief is that a skilled foreign worker in Singapore is an economic mercenary who is here only for the benefits. The reality is that many foreigners want to sink roots here. The point is made in a sample survey of 400 Singaporeans carried out in 2001 but included in a recently-published book, which found seven out of 10 saying that foreigners are here only for the economic benefits and are not committed to Singapore. But more than four in five of 501 foreigners who were interviewed for the survey said they hoped to continue working here over the next five years, and more than half of the 301 employment pass-holders interviewed wished to become permanent residents. The mismatch of perceptions is problematic for a global city like Singapore which thrives on the quality of its workforce, whether indigenous or imported. What is good, however, is that underlying local perceptions is the implied hope that foreigners will go local. And to the extent that foreigners want to do so, there is no contradiction with what Singaporeans expect of them. This convergence is important given the large number of foreigners in this country. According to figures cited by the survey's authors, the non-resident workforce rose from 248,200 in 1990 to 612,000 in 2000. The number of the better-educated holding employment passes also grew sharply. In 1997 they numbered about 55,000; by 2000 the figure had doubled to 110,000.

The presence of skilled foreigners is an intrinsic part of Singapore's attempts to move up the achievement scale. What they deserve, by way of reciprocity from Singaporeans, is a recognition of the contribution which they make to the country's total welfare. The best way for Singaporeans to look at workers here is not to compartmentalise them mentally into 'foreigners' and 'locals', 'them' and 'us', but to see everybody as being part of an integrated national effort to stay one step ahead in the global race. Of course, this is easier said than done, not least because unemployment and the threat of losing one's jobs have wounded the Singaporean psyche. A Gallup poll last year found that 56 per cent of Singaporeans and permanent residents believed that foreign infusions were necessary for the country's continued economic vitality, but this was down from 64 per cent two years earlier and 72 per cent in 1997. The eroding sentiment cannot be ignored, but the reality is that if foreigners were not to compete with Singaporeans and ultimately make companies here more competitive, they would raise the competitiveness of firms abroad that would be taking on Singaporean companies. Then, entire companies - including their Singaporean workers - could be at risk.

Harsh though it sounds, the globalisation that is changing the demography of Singapore's workforce is at least as old as the founding of Singapore itself. The ancestors of today's Singaporeans who came here in search of a living before sinking roots turned it into a thriving entrepot. Those arriving today are doing nothing different. Now, as then, a country which survives by exporting to the rest of the world cannot close its doors to the import of capital - and talent. A country predicated on success cannot shut out the successful just because they were not born in it. And why should it? The latest survey suggests that many foreigners want to make Singapore their home. Enlightened Singaporeans create a second home for them on the road to what, it is hoped, will become a permanent home and a more prosperous one for all.

27 Feb 2004

By Chiang Yin Pheng

FINANCE Minister Lee Hsien Loong, in presenting the Budget on Friday, unveiled some principles that will guide the Government in its policies to boost procreation.

For example, he said, the Government can consider extending maternity leave, now at two months.

More can also be done to provide infant care when the new mum has to return to work and to help parents strike a balance between work and family without overburdening employers.

Speculation ahead of the Budget speech had centred on the Government announcing concrete moves to bump up the flagging birth rate, but Mr Lee said that the matter of getting people to have more babies was, at the end of the day, a personal decision that needed closer study.

He said he had picked minister Lim Hng Kiang to head a group to look into the matter and come up with concrete policies by National Day.

Singapore's birth rate has fallen below the level needed for Singaporeans to replace themselves, he noted, adding that if nothing was done, the country could be stymied in its development and lose its vitality.

In 2003, for instance, only 36,000 babies were born, one of the lowest numbers ever. Singapore needs 50,000 new babies a year for the population to replace itself and to keep the economy going.

Mr Lee says that the committee that will come up with policies to bring up the birth rate would work on bringing up the number of Singapore-citizen babies.

The panel would also come up with perks to encourage better-qualified women to marry and marry earlier, and to eventually have children.

The panel will also look into encouraging immigrants to settle here, and eventually embrace citizenship.

Originally posted by RafflesCity

The panel would also come up with perks to encourage better-qualified women to marry and marry earlier, and to eventually have children.Eeek......darwinism theory at work again? :bleep:

well, it is ummm an unpleasant truth of life :/

Originally posted by heirloom

well, it is ummm an unpleasant truth of life :/ The thing is...proof it!!

want more babies in Singapore? turn off the lights to the houses :)

may sound strange but it works ;) ;)

The exhausted Singaporean will probably go to sleep straightaway!

But who knows? drwho knows;) ;) :D

Population policy needs a few months' work

THE upcoming Budget will spell out Singapore's procreation policy and key considerations in addressing the low birth rates - but do not expect specific policy changes. Such details will be worked out only in another few months, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told reporters after touring the newly renovated Ang Mo Kio Polyclinic on Saturday.

Mr Lee, who is also Finance Minister, acknowledged that there were widespread expectations that this year's Budget - to be announced on Friday - will deal decisively with the population issue. Quelling such expectations, he said: 'I'm not sure that we will have all of the pieces for the procreation policies ready immediately for the Budget because this is really a long-term issue, which we have been studying.'

Besides government policies, he added, what was needed also was a change in people's mindset, to get them to think in a different way and to value children. 'So what we are likely to do in the Budget is to have the principles set out, what are the key considerations in tackling this problem. But I would probably like to take another few months to study it further before we come to specific definite measures.'

Noting that there were many facets to the problem, he said it called for a comprehensive plan. And it should not be just about getting parents to have children earlier or more children, but addressing other issues on people's minds. These would include concerns over childcare, the expectations of employers towards returning mothers and couples juggling work and family life, he said.

Turning to another group that has made its expectations known, he noted that business associations had already started sending feelers to the ministers to re-look business costs. 'I hear them every Budget and we are very mindful that we have to keep our business costs in control, and we have been tracking them,' said Mr Lee.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-02-23/money.jpg
The Budget is likely to set out key considerations in tackling the issue of low birth rates, says Mr Lee.

This happens when we dont want to pro-create?

Foreign worker rules to be eased

Move will allow growth of sectors short of skilled workers

By Goh Chin Lian

THE foreign worker policy will be relaxed soon to allow companies in sectors short of skilled staff to get the people they need. The changes are likely to help the health-care, information technology and biopharmaceutical manufacturing sectors in particular, because they are short of skilled workers.

But Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen had this assurance yesterday for Singapore workers who might think they would lose more jobs to foreigners: The Government remains committed to training them to acquire the skills for these jobs.

Relaxing the rules, he said, did not mean a win-lose situation would result. He explained that Singapore's estimated growth rate of 3 to 5 per cent this year depends on industries that require higher skills.

'If we do not allow companies to get skilled workers... they are not going to be able to grow,' he told reporters at an inauguration ceremony for the building of two new hangars by SIA Engineering Company (SIAEC). Up to a point, we will lose the edge and businesses may go elsewhere', and that would cost Singapore even more jobs.

He did not say what aspects of the foreign worker policy would be relaxed, but hinted that a worker's qualifications and salary level would be factored in.

The current foreign worker policy has two aspects: Work permits for unskilled and semi-skilled workers who earn $2,500 or less a month, such as cleaners and construction workers; and Employment passes for those with skills and earn over $2,500 monthly, such as engineers and managers. The policy restricts the number of work permit holders that a company can hire, but has no cap on the number of employment pass holders.

Nursing homes and hospitals, for instance, can hire only three foreign nurses on work permits for every seven Singaporeans or permanent residents on the payroll. The same quota applies to aerospace technicians on work permits. This means a perennial shortage of workers in sectors that fewer Singaporeans work in, whether it is because of a lack of skills or inclination.

Getting a better balance between the need for more lower-skilled foreign workers and providing jobs for Singaporeans has been talked about often. Last year, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong spoke of the need to 'rationalise and smooth out our system a little bit more'.

At yesterday's event, SIAEC said it would spend up to $120 million to build two new hangars, increasing its capacity for maintenance work by 30 per cent. The hangars - one will be ready by year-end, the other, three months later - can handle the latest aircraft, such as the ultra long-range Airbus 340-500 and super-jumbo Airbus 380.

SIAEC expects to recruit 800 more engineers, technicians and support staff for the hangars, a quick turnaround from June last year, when it laid off 63 workers. Asked if SIAEC had been too hasty in laying off the workers, chairman Koh Boon Hwee gave a firm 'no'. 'In business, you have to ensure that it stays healthy, otherwise there will be no investment and no 800 jobs,' said Mr Koh, who is also Singapore Airlines' chairman.

What mama wants

Papa to get 8 weeks' paternity leave
Govt to pay for more than 2 months' maternity leave
Glamourise being a mama
Stop telling us how many babies to have

By Lydia Lim

SINGAPORE needs more babies? When a group of women got down to discussing the issue, there was no shortage of ideas. Fathers should get eight weeks' paternity leave to do their part in parenting. Mothers deserve more than two months' maternity leave for Baby No 1 and Baby No 2 - six months would be nice, and the Government should pick up the tab for the extra time off.

And if there must be a campaign, make it a drive to glamourise motherhood, not one that tells Singaporeans the 'correct' number of babies to have. The ideas from the People's Action Party Women's Wing come ahead of Friday's Budget, when the Government will spell out Singapore's procreation policy and what it is considering to slow the fall in the birth rate.

The number of babies born here has been declining over the years and reached a 25-year low of 37,633 last year. The Women's Wing wants to help stop the decline. Last Saturday, its leaders brought together a group of women to discuss the problem and find out what they think can be done to fix it. Yesterday, they issued a press statement containing 14 proposals drawn from the discussion as well as feedback from their grassroots network.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, who chairs the Women's Wing, said: 'As the Government seems to be looking at this issue in an exhaustive manner, we thought it would be useful for us to share our views.' What came through during her discussions with women was their concern about their limited choices - whether in career, childcare or leave arrangements - once they became mothers.

It was also important to them that their husbands shared in the responsibility of raising their children, added Mrs Lim, a mother of three. That explains the call for mandatory paternity leave of eight weeks, a big jump from the three days that the Civil Service currently grants fathers. Mrs Lim said such a change would signal to everyone that fathers also have a role to play in child-rearing.

Women would also like longer maternity leave of up to six months. They want the Government to pick up the tab for the extension, as it does for the salaries of Singapore men when they are called up for reservist training.

They also took issue with the 'have three, or more if you can afford it' campaign, saying it reminded people of the 'stop at two' campaign. 'The Government should stop prescribing a correct number,' the Women's Wing said in its statement. There should also be an end to such 'qualified encouragement', it added.

As for the proposal to 'glamourise motherhood', that's a message for young women, many of whom may shun motherhood because they view it as one sacrifice after another, said Member of Parliament Amy Khor, a mother of three.

The Government can lend a hand to correct the misconception that being a mother means showing up for appointments with dishevelled hair and being bogged down by responsibilities, she said. 'More should be done to emphasise the positive aspects of motherhood and girls and boys should be taught from a young age about the joys of parenting,' said Dr Khor.

Another proposal aimed at giving mothers more choices is extending the tax breaks for having children to husbands, so women do not have to return to work to benefit. The maid levy should also slide over time so employers can retain good maids without paying more.

There should be subsidies for a minimum standard of antenatal and postnatal care to ensure childbearing is a pleasant experience, as well as to cover the vaccinations children need in their first few years.

The Government should also provide tax incentives to encourage employers to be more pro-family. The wishlist for changes in the workplace include flexible work arrangements, child sick leave, job sharing options and in-house creches.

Also, given the growing number of women who are marrying non-Singaporean men, these couples should be given the assurance that the husband will be granted Singapore citizenship. This will help them plan their families.

Summing up the proposals, Mrs Lim said: 'Women want a situation where they decide whether or not to have children and when they have decided, to not have to encounter discrimination.'

Dr Khor said a menu of measures would be needed to address the concerns of parents in different age and income groups. Even with these changes, she does not expect the baby shortfall to disappear any time soon.

'We have to be realistic but, where possible, we should do what we can to slow the decline. Otherwise, Singapore will have a falling birth rate and an ageing population and that will be a very serious issue.'

What mum's not getting

TODAY's Budget has been flagged as a preamble to a population policy, with the menu of concessions and social-policy adjustments such as childcare and employment incentives to come later. But as a wish list of procreation incentives put out by the PAP women's wing shows, working mothers' inclination is to skip over the literature and talk specifics. Enough has been said about the link between declining birth rates and a reducing workforce, leading to diminished economic vitality. The Government should not take too long to publish its action plan on how to arrest the birth problem. Indeed, Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong could work in last-minute additions to his Budget statement to take account of the urgency. Sentiment expressed by focus groups and lobbyists like the women's group Aware has been consistent and unvariable.

It is noteworthy, for illustration, that the PAP women's proposals tacitly acknowledge that financial incentives have their place. Their core suggestions - two months' paid paternity leave, paid maternity leave of up to six months, subsidised ante-natal and post-natal care and infant vaccinations, lower maid's levy - are all about household budgeting. This would dispute the impression that financial lures are not working as intended. Women and their menfolk appreciate the support but resent being patronised. That is what is terrible about the prescriptive approach of saying: 'Have three or more, if you can afford it'. This goes down badly with better educated women, so ministers and bureaucrats (overwhelmingly male) who write the policy language should show some sensitivity.

Attitudes have to change if Singapore is to get out of the low-birth rut. Employers have a lot to answer for. The workplace can be made more family-friendly, and this is not only about providing creches. The PAP women's list contains commonsensical suggestions (ample sick-child leave and flexible work hours, for instance) which employers will have to look upon as survival options, not privileges to be offered grudgingly. Discrimination against women who return to work after a year or two off to raise a child has to be eliminated, by statute if necessary. A study of Japan's gender situation, by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), says that a looming labour shortage can be averted if more young mothers rejoined the workforce. It notes that some government policies and employer practices discourage women from working after they have children. In Singapore, two-income families do not have the option of the mother staying home to see the child grow. The home budget would be in chronic deficit if that happened. Rather, Singapore's legislators, state planners and employers ought to ponder the OECD conclusion: 'Changes are needed in Japan's labour market to provide them (mothers) with the flexible hours, attractive jobs, decent wages and career prospects needed to entice them back into employment.'

In social services, as another OECD study of Ireland shows, massive public investment in affordable childcare here has to be a serious not piecemeal effort. If women are to be encouraged to have children and also keep working, professional childcare services must eventually replace maids. Finally, the ultimate mindset change: Singaporean males will prove their manhood best if they share parenting and household duties fully. It would not end with the help provided during paternity leave. If the full load of child-rearing and keeping house continues to fall on their wives, as is the cultural norm, women would be fully justified to hold off starting a family. And then what?

What S'pore needs to boost birth rate

By Janadas Devan

WHY are fertility rates - the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime - declining throughout the world? Demographers point to the following factors: the wide availability of contraceptives; reduced child mortality rate, so parents can achieve their desired number of children with fewer births; urbanisation raising the cost-benefit ratio of children, so encouraging parents to choose quality over quantity; and the education of women equipping them to enter the workforce, so increasing the opportunity cost of their bearing children.

These factors are now operative in large parts of the world. Does that mean humanity is condemned to low fertility rates permanently? Not necessarily.

Take contraceptives: They are as widespread in Turkey as in Japan. But Turkey has a birth rate of 20 per 1,000 people, more than double Japan's nine. Unless Turkish condoms are peculiarly leaky, contraceptives obviously don't automatically result in low fertility rates.

Or take jobs for women: If it leads inevitably to fewer births, the greater the participation of women in the workforce, the lower fertility rates should be. But World Bank figures for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries show that the opposite is the case: the higher the proportion of women in a country's workforce, the higher is that country's fertility rate.

Spain, Italy and Greece, for instance, have the lowest female workforce participation rates among European Union countries (35 to 38 per cent of the labour force), and yet their fertility rates are also the lowest (between 1.1 and 1.3). By contrast, Finland, Sweden and Norway have among the highest female workforce participation rates in Europe (close to 50 per cent), but their fertility rates (1.75 and above) are significantly higher than the European average of 1.4.

Similarly, the United States has a fertility rate slightly below the replacement level of 2.1, but women constitute close to 48 per cent of its labour force; whereas Japan has a fertility rate of just 1.34, but women constitute only slightly above 40 per cent of its labour force.

What explains this strange discrepancy? Can it be that American women prefer the 'super-mum' route, juggling careers and homes, whereas Japanese women dislike children, and are lazy to boot, since they don't seem to like work much either? That obviously cannot be so.

A more credible explanation suggests itself when one looks at the low-fertility-rate countries. What do they have in common? One, they are in Southern Europe or East Asia. And two, traditional attitudes towards women are still dominant in them. Is that a coincidence?

Professor Lena Sommestad, an economic historian at Sweden's Uppsala University, doesn't think so. 'Birth rates are particularly low in countries that support traditional patterns of marriage and breadwinning,' she observes. Mr Martin Wolf of the Financial Times agrees: 'What is happening in Italy, Spain and Japan,' he says, 'is the war of women against male chauvinism. Women are winning' - by, in effect, declaring a womb-strike on society. 'If the men who dominate these countries do not surrender, they will soon not have much of a society left.'

That sounds extravagant, but it makes perfect sense. Japanese and Italian women have as much access to education as their Swedish and American sisters do, but they don't enjoy as much equality. Getting hitched and having babies in these societies all too frequently means being subject to traditional male authority. When the reality at home does not match the emancipation that their education entitles them to, it makes sense for women to choose childlessness.

But the problem here is not female emancipation. The problem is the failure of family structures in particular, and of society in general, to adjust to that emancipation - an emancipation that these societies themselves nurtured. Isn't that the root reason why fertility rates are falling in Singapore too?

The close correlation between female workforce participation and fertility rates suggests also that the more fulfilled women feel, the more likely they are to have children. Women need not necessarily choose between children and careers, Prof Sommestad says, and a fertility rate of 2.1 is not impossible.

General 'social confidence' may also be a factor. US fertility rates, for instance, fell in the 1970s and 1980s, to around 1.8, below West European levels. But in the 1990s, they jumped to around 2.1, not only among immigrants but also native-born Americans, while West Europe's fell to 1.4. The booming US economy of the 1990s was a factor, US demographers believe. Japanese economist Tadashi Nakamae told this newspaper he is convinced the current dearth of babies in Japan is not unrelated to its decade-long economic slump.

But a booming economy alone is probably not enough to boost fertility rates. If the experience of Scandinavian countries - and to some extent, the US as well - is any indication, social programmes to enable couples to have babies are also needed. That means parental leave, flexi-work arrangements, child-care facilities, tax breaks - the whole expensive caboodle.

In other words, merely promoting 'family values' will not do. Practical measures to foster families are needed. The past is gone for good - it wasn't all that great, in any case, for half the human race.

What high-income, low-fertility-rate countries, including Singapore, need, are:
- A social ideology that not only approves of women having careers, but also encourages equality both at work and at home;
- Practical programmes to help them have babies and continue to work.

If Iceland, which has the highest fertility rate among OECD countries, can do this, there is no reason why other high-income countries can't.

Whatever it takes?

Comprehensive baby hamper needed to beat the birth dearth

By Susan Long

The baby bust in Singapore is old news. Everyone knows the numbers are dismal. Few expect it can get any worse. It is probably the lone productivity figure in Singapore always associated with 'historic lows' and 'steady slides'.

Yet, the latest low revealed yesterday breached even the most pessimistic of projections. Taking stork yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong grimly revealed that Singapore's birth rate last year fell to a nadir of 1.26, one of the lowest in the world.

Putting the nation's current total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.26 births per Singapore woman into context, that means Singapore is, quite literally, the last boy in the worst class in the fertility world today.

Because the birth dearth has become endemic in most developed countries today, demographers have divided low-fertility countries today into two groups.

The first group - with TFRs of 1.7 to two such as France and the Nordic countries - is still considered 'acceptable' because its gradual population decline can be padded up with minimal immigration.

The second - with under 1.5 births per woman, such as Italy, Spain, Japan and Singapore - is 'totally unacceptable', because its population is falling too frantically, even as it ages dramatically.

Doing the sums, Australian demographer Peter McDonald worked out that a TFR of 1.3 translates to a population decline rate of 1.5 per cent per year. This means Singapore would fall to a quarter of its size in about 100 years. And it will not take long before migrants actually replace the original stock, bringing about dire social disruption.

And so, DPM Lee yesterday wasted no time unveiling a new baby basket of trinkets, incentives and some insurance plans - which will most likely be handed out at this year's National Day Rally - to spur on the sluggish stork.

This new baby hamper, which can be described as hard-nosed yet holistic, marks a landmark departure from the Government's old way of dealing with the problem of procreation paucity with piecemeal gestures.

For one, it is taking 'a more comprehensive approach' that includes more infant and child care support, better work-life balance and more generous tax incentives. This time around, it did not just announce yet another Baby Bonus - which has been called 'characteristically stingy', in any case.

If the old pro-natal approach was: 'Only if it doesn't cost too much', then today's stance appears to be: 'Whatever it takes'. Fertility watchers say it now seems to be 'showing parents the money' and has now upped its dollar threshold per baby.

Most symbolically, the Government has relented on extending maternity leave, which - currently capped at two months - has long been a sticking point with Singapore women. It has indicated it will likely pick up the tab, which will be substantial, to avoid 'overburdening employers with added costs'.

That is a grand concession in itself - even though how far it is prepared to move towards the norm in Nordic countries, where the state typically pays for a year of leave for parents to bond with their babies, remains to be seen.

All these longer-term measures also smack less of a 'Government in a hurry', of tinkering in social engineering based on the latest demographic projections.

As DPM Lee said, he was prepared that the impact of these procreation policies 'may not be felt immediately, because changing attitudes, mindsets and practices takes time and patience'. Observers say this suggests that the Government could be - at last - willing to commit to a population policy for the long haul.

A useful cautionary tale here is the Canadian province of Quebec, which prematurely withdrew its Bebe (French for baby) Bonus after 10 years, only to realise later that the scheme it labelled an 'abject failure' and scrapped in 1997 had actually boosted its fertility rates.

Third, the baby basket also, revealingly, came lined in the national colours of red and white.

All its contents were explicitly intended to grow the total population of Singapore citizen babies, 'without whom we would not be a nation'. With that, the Government served notice that it may play the nationalistic card and persuade Singaporeans to procreate, if nothing else, for patriotic reasons.

After all, that was part of France's winning pitch, when it exhorted citizens to do their duty to prevent the demise of the nation, and successfully upped its TFR from 1.5 to 1.9 within five years.

Failing that, it also unveiled its fall-back plan to boost the population through new migrants, whom statistics show tend to have a higher fertility rate.

The only sameness in this Baby Budget was its intended recipient: Once again the 'better-qualified women'.

It was clear the Government intended to continue with its 'selective and qualified pro-natalistic' stance of encouraging only those who can afford it to have more - which may rankle with the same set of graduate mothers who were up in arms over the Great Marriage Debate in 1983.

This was the only item that struck a somewhat controversial and discordant note. While the Government was desperate, it was not all that desperate. At least not enough to accept contributions from just about any womb yet.

A ROBUST SOCIETY

Oh baby! Singapore's got to have more of 'em to survive. Also vital is a strong society marked by self-reliance, resilience and social responsibility, according to the Budget

BABY-MAKING

• Two civil service teams visited Europe to study how to boost birth rates

• Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, to make specific proposals in a report due before National Day. Working Committee on Population to assist

Why
• Only 36,000 babies born last year - but 50,000 are needed to replace ageing population

• Existing measures not enough to reverse this

This means
• Women with better qualifications to get more attractive incentives to have babies

• Mothers may get longer maternity leave

• Subsidised infant care

• Civil service to set example as pro-family employer

• Emphasis on producing next generation of Singapore citizens

• But more immigrants to supplement birth rate though encouraging them to take out citizenship


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGHER EDUCATION
• Education Ministry, universities reviewing fees

Why
• More students qualifying for university, pushing up Government spending

• This forces Government to squeeze resources from primary and secondary education. Undesirable for society as a whole

• Universities will be more competitive and flexible to market demands if rely less on Government funds

This means
• Undergrads likely to pay larger share of tuition fees, up from 25 per cent

• They can take loans and pay off later when in workforce

• Needy won't miss out. Scholarships, bursaries and student loans still available


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEALTHCARE
• CPF Board will enforce Medisave contributions more strictly for the self-employed

• Health Ministry studying how to enhance Medishield coverage

• It will look at how to extend means-testing to general hospitals

• Those aged 50 and above to get $50-$200 top-ups in Medisave accounts. Cost to Government: $104 million

• Medifund will be boosted by $100 million, to targeted size of $1 billion

Why
• Only 47% of self-employed CPF members have paid full Medisave contributions

• Subsidies currently linked to class of ward, not income. Rich or poor, all patients get 80 per cent subsidy in a Class C ward

• Medisave Scheme only started in 1984. Older Singaporeans have lower balances. Medical costs hit them hard

This means
• Patients have to take more responsibility for their health


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RETIREMENT
• More tax relief for cash top-ups to CPF retirement accounts. From 2005, the tax relief ceiling to rise from $6,000 to $7,000

• Tax relief extended to cash top-ups made for non-working spouses 55 and over

Why
• Encourages more voluntary top-ups of retirement accounts

• Older full-time housewives financially vulnerable -- need family to chip in

This means
• More incentives to plan for personal and family retirement

Don't worry.

sOmeOne and I might bring up the population count by two one fine day. :cool:

Originally posted by Jo

Don't worry.

sOmeOne and I might bring up the population count by two one fine day. :cool: I knew about someone, but you as well?!?! :eek:

Anyway, if you are serious about dropping by, you might be expected to marry and have lotsa children too. :D

wow... singapore's immigration department should set up shop in skyscrapercity.com...

Yeh, well maybe I'm not as sure about it as someone but it's definetly a consideration that pops up once in a while, and have actually done so for a long time. :)

I like the attitude towards immigration: as long as people are ready and able to work hard they can get a work permit or citizenship. (if I got that simplification right.. not sure)

Anyway, if you are serious about dropping by, you might be expected to marry and have lotsa children too. :D
Hehe.. umm that worries me as I read many times that Singaporeans don't have less sex/children than other nationalities.

..hmm, isn't there a Finnish guy who is thinking about moving to SG as well?!

Originally posted by Jo

Hehe.. umm that worries me as I read many times that Singaporeans don't have less sex/children than other nationalities.

..hmm, isn't there a Finnish guy who is thinking about moving to SG as well?! Not so sure what you mean by the first sentence?

And yeah...there is another finnish couple thinking of moving over as well...:D

Rat race a reason for birth dearth

By Li Xueying

In Friday's Budget statement, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong revealed that Singapore's birth rate last year fell to a nadir of 1.26, one of the lowest in the world. The Sunday Times takes a look at what can be done to fix this

THE Straughans should have been the poster parents for those who 'have three, or more if you can afford it'. After all, both are well-paid professionals, have an experienced maid to help out with chores, and a loving mother to baby-sit their kids.

Sociologist Paulin Straughan, an expert in population and family life, realises, more than most people, the need for Singapore to arrest the slide in its birth rate. But despite the temptation of having a girl to add to their sons, Robbie, 12, and Timmy, nine, they are stopping at two.

'Given our circumstances, we should have been very comfortable. But we still find it difficult, and we're struggling to give them all the time and attention that we want,' said Professor Straughan, 40. 'Things are just about manageable now, but if we have one more, it will tilt the balance. It will also take away the time we're now giving our sons.'

Their situation is hardly rare. Singaporeans' pursuit of excellence is leading, ironically, to the dearth of births. Parents here want the best for their children, and if that's not attainable, they'd rather not have them, said Prof Straughan. The nub lies in the cost - in terms of money and time - needed to bring a child up.

There are two areas of monetary cost - the basic one that provides for necessities, and the 'value-added one which you aspire for your kid for him to be at the front', said Prof Straughan. These are the extras, such as tuition and music lessons, which have become 'must-haves' for many parents.

'The race is competitive and that head start can be crucial,' said Prof Straughan. 'There is very little room for late-bloomers. And unfortunately, if you fall out of the education system, you're marginalised in our society.'

A 2002 Straits Times survey found that the education costs for a child, from pre-primary to university, totalled $77,353. Education policies such as Primary 2 streaming and four exams in a year mean it has also become crucial for parents to invest time and attention in guiding their kids through the minefields.

So what can be done? Prof Straughan says monetary incentives are a 'superficial, short-term' measure. What's more important is a hard look at the root of the problem. Policymakers, in areas from education to labour, have to consider how their policies may affect the family function.

Companies should be family-friendly, by instituting a five-day work week, and be more flexible by allowing parents to take an hour off to collect their children from school, she said. 'It's all about balance.'

The problem is less severe among Malays, the only group reproducing enough to replace its population. Its 1999 birth rate is 2.42, compared to the Chinese group's 1.3 and the Indians' 1.58. This is because Malays tend to be more traditional on the gender division of labour, said Prof Straughan. This stems from a strong community network - a result of a common religion - leading to greater social policing.

As Chinese and Indian women tend to be more highly-educated, the opportunity costs are higher if they give up their careers to have children.

Getting PRs to take citizenship plunge

By Edna Koh

A CARROT-AND-STICK approach is being considered to encourage permanent residents to take up Singapore citizenship and boost the size of the population.

The carrot: More incentives for Singapore permanent residents (PRs) to become citizens. The stick: Reduce the incentives they get as PRs so Singapore citizenship looks more attractive.

Acting Minister for Manpower and Minister of State for Education Ng Eng Hen touched on these options yesterday in response to questions from reporters on the sidelines of the Ministry of Education's annual Healthy Lifestyle Day. He declined to say which approach the Government was leaning towards.

Last Friday's Budget statement dwelt extensively on the need to reverse the low birth rates here. Dr Ng said that 'you don't just want baby counts...but citizens'.

Singapore citizens enjoy more privileges than PRs. Apart from being able to vote in parliamentary elections, citizens can buy or rent subsidised flats from the Housing Board. PRs can buy HDB flats only on the resale market and face restrictions in buying landed property. In addition, foreigners - including PRs - who want to become union committee members require ministerial approval.

The president of the Singapore Airlines pilots' union, for example, recently appealed to the Ministry of Manpower to permit three foreigners - all Singapore PRs - to sit on its council. On this case, Dr Ng noted that the aviation industry was a strategic one and if the three PRs 'are willing to sink roots, we'll approve on that basis'. He added that it was not necessarily the case that only Singapore citizens would be given approval. 'We will leave enough latitude.'

On Friday, the Government also announced that it would introduce a new work pass - the S-pass - to make it easier for bosses to hire skilled foreign workers.

But Dr Ng did not think Singaporeans would resent this move as the number of S-pass holders is capped. Moreover, the scheme is meant to address a severe shortage of workers in some sectors. 'If you don't allow businesses to get these workers...the industry can't take root, can't create jobs for Singaporeans as well as foreigners.'

$3.4m price tag for becoming a citizen

By Arlina Arshad

ASK Indonesian Katherine Nusantara, 28, what it would take for her to become a Singapore citizen and she replies: US$2 million. That sum works out to S$3.4 million, which is what she reckons it will take to provide a comfortable life.

Though she was born and raised here, the Singapore permanent resident isn't ready to cut all ties with Indonesia though she has a Singaporean boyfriend, a 29-year-old lawyer, and says she plans to settle here. 'Being a permanent resident is good enough. I'm Indonesian and that's my heritage. It has a lot of sentimental value,' she said.

She is the third of four siblings, all girls. Two of her sisters have already taken up citizenship and the remaining sister is planning to. 'To my sisters, it's very straightforward. They said they have no emotional ties with the country. But...I feel that Indonesia has its charms.'

It does bother her that she needs a visa to visit certain countries when her sisters don't. 'But I won't give up my citizenship just because of that,' she said. She and one of her older sisters live in a semi-detached house at Upper Aljunied Road. Their parents are in Indonesia, and her other two sisters are working in the United States.

Pressed to say how she settled on that US$2 million figure, she said it was the 'barest minimum' to ensure she could live here comfortably here till 65. Miss Nusantara, a senior accounts manager in an advertising agency, said: 'Things are going to become more expensive. Singapore is very small and I feel that opportunities are running out. No matter how hard I work, the returns won't be as much as what our forefathers used to get.'

So, she reckons that if there is a monetary incentive offered for citizenship, then it should be enough to provide a comfortable living. 'What if I give up my passport and something happens to Singapore?' she said. 'Unless the offer is US$2 million, I think it's better that I enjoy the best of both worlds - live in Singapore and keep my heritage.'

Want more of these? Here's what mums want

The Singapore woman had 1.37 babies on average last year. To keep population constant, she needs to have 2.1. Ten mums tell TRACY QUEK what would help them.

MONEY TALKS

• MORE baby bonus: Mums say the incentive introduced in 2001 isn't enough. They want it to cover all their children and for a longer spell. They now get $500 a year for the second child and $1,000 for the third child until they are six years old. They also get paid maternity leave for the third child as well. This was meant to help families cope with the cost of having a second and third child.

• Lower the cost of employing maids: Slash the maid levy, offer working mums maid subsidies so they can employ maids to help out at home. Mrs Daphne Ong, 32, a business analyst in a computer company has a three-year-old daughter and a 10-month-old son, and another baby on the way. 'For working mums, maids are indispensable.'

• Shift the tax burden: Accounting executive Ivy Chan, 36, had this suggestion: 'Single women or those married with no kids should bear a bigger tax burden; and those with kids, a smaller load. This might encourage women to marry and have kids.'

• Private nanny subsidies: Subsidies shouldn't be for kids in childcare centres only, but also for those looked after by private nannies. Working mothers get a subsidy for children in childcare centres. Stay-at-home mums get half the subsidy.

BOSSES, HAVE A HEART

• FLEXIBLE work hours: If employers let mums work from home, take on part-time work or work a four-day week, that would encourage women to have two or more children.

• Longer maternity leave: Two months is not enough. Mums want more time with baby so they can breast feed up to six months. Some also want paid paternity leave of up to two months.

• Company creches: It helps if there are workplace childcare centres. Mrs J. Lim, 33, a marketing manager in an electronics firm has a two-year-old daughter, Kaitlyn. 'If there's a centre at my office, at least I can work in peace knowing my kids are somewhere in the building, I'm just a couple of minutes away from them, instead of calling home 10 times a day,' she said.

• Breastfeeding rooms: Every office should have a comfortable room with a fridge so that mums can express their breast milk and store it. Mrs Sharon Tan, 24, a finance executive in a documents company, has a son, two-year-old Cody. She said: 'Most mothers want to breast feed for six months but most stop after their maternity leave ends, because the toilet is the only place where we can express our milk at work.'

• Back to work: Fear that they won't be able to get good jobs after a hiatus of five or even 10 years of bringing children at home puts working mums off having children. Civil servant Angeline Tan, 34, who has a 17-month-old son Linus, and one more on the way, said: 'It's hard for older mums to get back to work because employers would choose someone younger with no family commitments. Employers should recognise that we can still contribute despite the break we took.'

Incentives in other countries

FRANCE

• MATERNITY leave is payable for six weeks before and 10 weeks after childbirth, at a maximum of 80 per cent of earnings, for first and second children. For a third child, it is eight weeks before and 18 weeks after childbirth. Before confinement, leave is available for 12 weeks, and for 22 weeks after confinement.

• Paternity leave, as of January 2002, was extended from three to 14 days of paid, job-protected leave and to 21 days in the case of multiple births.

• Workers qualify for parental leave after working for the same employer for at least one year. Workers have the right to return to the same or similar job at the same pay. The leave is unpaid for the first child and paid for the second and subsequent children at a flat rate, pro-rated if part-time.

THE NETHERLANDS

• THE Netherlands has a paid 16-week maternity leave. Each parent has a right to three months full-time unpaid, job-protected leave or its equivalent. Parental leave may be taken until the child is eight years old.

• Fathers are offered two days of paid paternity leave. Parents may also use up to 10 days family leave a year, as well as an additional two days of emergency leave.

• Employers receive a 30 per cent deduction in payroll taxes for any childcare expenses which they have incurred.

NORWAY

• THE maternity leave is a compulsory nine-weeks - three weeks prior to the expected birth and six weeks following the birth.

• The paternity leave is four weeks for the father which is available on a 'use it or lose it' basis. In addition, even if the mother has not been in the labour force, fathers are entitled to a two-week unpaid but job protected leave.

• Civil servants are entitled to an unpaid, job-protected period of leave for three years to take care of a child, in addition to parental leave.

SWEDEN

• TEN days paternity leave.

• Parents are entitled to a total of 12 months' paid leave between birth and the child's eighth birthday, with one of those months being reserved specifically for the father. -- Wu Peining

Radical moves to help new mums

By Tan Tarn How

IN AN all-out drive to get more babies, the Government is considering giving women up to six months of paid maternity leave and possibly picking up the tab. It could cost up to $200 million a year for two extra months of leave at full pay, and double that for four months.

This is one of the radical options a committee headed by Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, is considering over the next five months before making its recommendations. It forms part of a 'holistic and coherent approach' he is taking to jump-start the plummeting birth-rate, which hit a historic low last year with 36,000 babies born.

Besides longer maternity leave, the other three key strategies being studied are: financial support, infant and child care, and promoting a work-life balance by encouraging family-friendly practices in the workplace.

However, in the quest for up to 50,000 babies a year, longer maternity leave looks set to play a crucial role. Mr Lim identified four issues that have to be resolved first. They are: whether it should be extended by eight or 16 weeks; made compulsory; on full or half pay or some other proportion; and whether the Government or companies should pay. Now, mothers get eight weeks at full salary paid by employers for the first two children. For the third child, the Government pays, up to $20,000.

'Maternity leave is not a cheap option', said Mr Lim. But the Government is willing to be the paymaster so as 'not to overburden employers' with new costs.

If the target of 50,000 babies a year is reached, another two months of leave will cost the Government a 'ball park' figure of about $160 million to $200 million a year, said Mr Lim, who is also the Second Finance Minister. Coupled with other pro-baby measures, such as tax reliefs and rebates, an extra eight weeks would cost the Government about $400 million a year.

The amount is equivalent to the additional tax that the Government will collect following its decision last week not to cut personal income tax rates from 22 per cent to 20 per cent. 'All that will help pay for this,' he said.

Mr Lim will be meeting workers, unions and employers in the coming months for dialogues. The starting point for these discussions will revolve around what he called two 'anchor points'.

Option 1: another eight weeks of mandatory maternity leave at full pay from the Government.

Option 2: another 16 weeks, but not compulsory and at half-pay given by the Government.

Neither option may be chosen in the end, but something in between, he added.

However, employers at local firms interviewed yesterday want the Government to foot the bill for any extra leave. Mr Albert Tan, a partner in a two-man law firm with five employees, warns that he might hesitate to employ a woman, and recruit just men and older women. 'As it is, with NSman obligations, I know some employers prefer hiring Malaysians,' he said.

Most mothers interviewed complained that bosses were unsympathetic. One, who is expecting a second child in October, said her boss - a mother herself - shot down all her suggestions, including working from home. When she asked for a transfer, her boss snapped that with her 'family problems', no other departments would take her.

Acknowledging the complexity of the issue, Mr Lim said supervisors, co-workers and Singaporeans at large will have to buy into it. He urged Singaporeans to send their ideas and views at www.feedback.gov.sg or call 1800-2585-812.

For the Government, he said it has to be mindful of the effects on the economy and strike a balance between keeping Singapore competitive and being pro-family. 'We have to be careful how we pitch ourselves.'

But the need for more babies is urgent. 'No matter how globalised we become, Singapore needs a core of citizens... not only to maintain the resilience of our economy and society, but also to preserve our identity as a nation based on Singaporean values,' said Mr Lim.

Baby drive sets sights on 3 'prime targets'

The women who are single, married with no kids or married with one kid - getting them to procreate is best bet, says Govt

By Tee Hun Ching

WHERE can more babies come from, wondered the committee studying the baby dearth. After plotting many charts, it found three fronts most likely to yield results - getting singles to tie the knot, persuading childless couples to have a kid, and encouraging those with one child to have another.

Combined, the three groups will have the greatest impact on the total birth rate, said Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, yesterday. Those who are single, childless or have only one child make up 42 per cent of resident females aged 35 to 39, and form 35 per cent of those aged 40 to 44.

Getting those with two or three children to have another one is not difficult as it is not a big mental jump, he said. But even if they do, they are not likely to yield significant results. This is because there are fewer than 2,000 babies here who are third order and above.

Said Mr Lim, who chairs the committee to look at procreation issues: 'These are small numbers. Even if you increase that by 20 per cent, you are talking about another 400 babies. The biggest impact is really with those with one child, those with no children and those who are not married. If we can make an impact on these three categories, it is where we will get the most babies from.'

The share of couples who are childless has doubled from 3 per cent in the mid-1980s, to 6 to 7 per cent. Similarly, the proportion of families with one child has also doubled from 7 to 14 per cent.

The Government will look at how to encourage families to have their first child earlier, so chances of bearing a second child easily are higher. Mr Lim noted that the prime fertility years - mid-20s to mid-30s - 'are actually quite a small window. If you don't seriously address the decision of whether to start a family or not, you may miss that window,' he said.

He recalled stories told by some obstetricians and gynaecologists, who see couples in their early 30s seeking abortion, and those in their late 30s wanting fertility help. 'It's very traumatic, very expensive, and very difficult to start a family late when you come round to wanting it,' he said. He also urged singles to consider their future, when they may not have immediate family members to take care of them in their twilight years.

But efforts to promote marriage will be carried out 'sensitively', he said, conceding that it was not something that is 'amenable to campaigns'. Initiatives will include helping foster social interaction and more opportunities for people to meet, especially at the workplace.

Minister for Community Development and Sports Yaacob Ibrahim said his ministry's studies have shown that most people cited the lack of time and opportunity to socialise. 'Interestingly enough, the bulk of those who responded, over 70 per cent, don't mind meeting people at their workplaces,' he said.

Mr Lim added that his committee recognises that, at the end of the day, starting a family remains a personal choice. He urged, however: 'Look at the collective consequences of your individual decisions. While we are caught up with our day-to-day pressure of work, career and so on, sometimes it's worthwhile to sit back and reflect.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apart from extending maternity leave, the Government is also looking at three other areas to promote parenthood


WORK-LIFE BALANCE

Now: Pro-family measures in the civil service for female employees include no-pay leave for childcare up to four years for each child below four years old, and part-time employment up to three years.

All civil servants also enjoy three days of paid marriage leave, and fully paid unrecorded leave of five days a year to look after a sick child below 12, up to 15 days a year for three or more children. Teleworking and flexi-time work arrangements are also implemented where feasible.

Future: The Government will consult employers and employee representatives to study the scope for part-time and other flexible arrangements for parents to spend more time with their children. Different approaches may be taken for different sectors rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CHILDCARE, BABY CARE

Now: There are 650 childcare centres here that take in children aged below seven, and most admit them from 18 months onwards. There are also 24 infant-care centres, providing 300 places, that look after those aged two to 18 months.

Under the new home-based Family Day Care Services scheme, parents can also be matchmade with nannies of their choice at selected childcare centres.

Future: Another 3,000 infant-care places will be added in the next five years. The Government will also look into increasing subsidies for such care and explore more home-based, family day-care options.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Now: The baby bonus scheme, introduced in 2001, is among the slew of financial carrots that aim to promote parenthood. It gives a yearly allowance of $500 for the second child and $1,000 for the third until he is six years old. There is also paid maternity leave for the third child. Working parents also get a subsidy for children in childcare centres. Mothers who do not work get half the subsidy.

A working mum also gets a special tax rebate for the second child, which can be offset against her or her husband's taxes for nine years. There is a further 15 per cent tax rebate for working mums with their third or a fourth child.

Future: The Government is considering whether the baby bonus scheme can be extended to benefit the first child, not just the second or third child. It will also consider how best to simplify and enhance existing tax measures. This could include allowing some measures to be claimed by both husbands and wives, and improving the tax rebates to better match the child-bearing patterns.

Join 'Team Singapore' - citizenship has its privileges

WHEN some foreign students wanted to join the new Sports School when it opened in January, they were told: join the Singapore team first. They agreed, took up citizenship and are among the school's 160 students.

Revealing this yesterday, Community Development and Sports Minister Yaacob Ibrahim said giving citizens privileges - in this case the high subsidies at the school - is one way of encouraging more people to sink roots here.

Besides education, the Government will also be tweaking housing, health and other policies to make citizenship more attractive, added Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance Lim Hng Kiang yesterday.

The changes will involve arriving at a 'delicate balance' between the privileges given to permanent residents and to citizens, he said. Already in public housing, there is a difference, with permanent residents having to pay more for Housing Board upgrading. But they can get back the difference if they become Singaporeans within a year of settling the bill.

Mr Lim did not give further details, beyond saying that the ministries will be asked to look into 'creative ways' to enhance the appeal of citizenship. He said that if the number of new citizens stayed constant and if the fertility rates do not turn round, Singapore's population would start to decline soon after 2020.

But even if the total fertility rate - the average number of children a woman is predicted to have in her lifetime - can improve, policymakers expect it to go at most to 1.8. This will be better than last year's all-time low of 1.26 but still below the 2.1 figure needed to replace the population.

Immigrants will have to top up the difference. But getting more citizens will be more than a numbers game. 'We have to make sure that people who join us can integrate into our society and fit in well, share our core values and our commitment here,' Mr Lim said. 'We must also make sure they reflect the multi-racial make-up of our country.'

Is dual citizenship one way to help boost the birth rate? 'It's not on the cards for the next five months. But never say 'never',' he said. -- Soh Wen Lin

When maternity leave is a dirty word

It's not talked about - but pregnancies can be unpopular at the workplace and catering to maternity leave is often a complex task

By Soh Wen Lin

MAY, 34, wants to keep working after she has her second child in October. So she made various proposals to her supervisor at the statutory board. These included working from home, working part-time or flexi-time, and even taking no-pay leave.

They were all shot down because of the department's workload. Her boss - a mother herself - also told May that she should either get her act together, or quit. When May asked for a transfer, her boss snapped that with her 'family problems', no other departments would take her.

Mrs Marlene Goh, 30, will have her first child next month. She handles accounts in a four-man team at a materials trading firm. After 'the big meeting' a few months back to delegate her responsibilities to her three colleagues, she got dirty looks and found herself lunching alone.

Her colleagues also insisted she give them a step-by-step manual on how to handle her files. 'It's almost like if anything goes wrong, it will be because I didn't document the manual properly,' she said.

What May and Mrs Goh face illustrates a harsh reality which does not often surface publicly: the unpopularity of pregnancies at the workplace, and the complexities involved in implementing maternity leave. The Government is now thinking aloud about even extending the leave period to encourage more to have babies.

But Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, acknowledged yesterday that even if the Government bore the financial burden of any extra leave, there could be problems. Employers, especially in smaller firms, could resist because of the hassle of making work arrangements around an absent mother, he said.

And while that might appear to be supported by what May and Mrs Goh have had to contend with, not all 10 mothers that The Straits Times spoke to had horror stories.

Ms Gayle Koh had no problems when she took an extra two months off last year from her non-governmental organisation (NGO) after her maternity leave ended. 'I had enough leave accumulated and my bosses were very kind to let me go. When I was away, my colleagues had to share the workload, so obviously, they were stretched. But people chipped in, helped out,' said Ms Koh, who is in her 30s.

As Mrs Rose Chin, 32, an advertising executive with a three-year-old, put it: 'It really depends on who's taking the leave. In our line, we are each responsible for a stable of clients. One colleague had horrible organisation skills, so when we covered for her, we had to keep harassing her at home to ask what to do about a client. It really strained the relationship,' she said.

'But this other one, she kept immaculate files. She briefed us in advance on what to look out for. She made it easy for us to help her, so it was easier to be sympathetic towards her.'

There was even one man who said his team was more than happy to cover for their working-mother team leader. 'This woman is one of those who regularly e-mails us at 3am to query details in our reports,' said Mr Steven Lee, 25, who works for a United States-based management consulting firm.

'She even postponed her caesarean procedure by a day because of a client meeting, and then called back while she was still in hospital.' He quipped: 'We're all happy to cover for her because frankly, it's less stressful!'

More time off? Let Govt foot bill, say bosses

THE Government should foot the bill for any extra maternity leave mandated, bosses of local firms said yesterday. It also should keep in mind the extra costs needed to hire and train temporary staff to cover for workers on maternity leave.

Small firms in which each job function is sometimes done by just one person said they were reluctant to consider accepting workers who might go on extended maternity leave of beyond two months. Coping with their absence in the current two months allowed was already disruptive to operations, they said.

Mr Albert Tan, a partner in a two-man law firm with five employees doing support work, for example, said he ultimately had to look at the bottom line. 'I could get a situation where I'd better not take women, or just men and older women... As it is, with NSman obligations, I know some employers prefer hiring Malaysians.'

Association of Small and Medium Enterprises president Lawrence Leow said he would prefer it if extra maternity leave could be negotiated between the company and the employee rather than having 'hard and fast rules'. Such responses will not surprise Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Hng Kiang.

At a press conference yesterday to discuss extending maternity leave, he said he expected more resistance from SMEs with few staff. But multinational firms, despite their tendency to flee to lower-cost countries, are likely to be more responsive as they are used to pro-family policies back home.

Local bosses interviewed yesterday said they were willing to work at finding solutions, such as more flexible working arrangements and better childcare facilities at work.Having more infant-care facilities and making them affordable will be critical, said Best World International chief executive Dora Hoan, who oversees 40 full-time workers and several hundred freelancers.

So is exploiting any flexibility the company can afford in work arrangements, said Sakae Sushi founder Douglas Foo. The chain has 700 employees.

'Granted, it's easier in our industry because we work odd hours,' he said. He added that he supported extending maternity leave to up to six months. We learnt to adjust to NSman needs... More maternity leave is something we can eventually adapt to and accept,' said Mr Foo.

Longer leave is great, but what will the bosses think?

Readers raise a variety of concerns and suggestions about the proposal to give working mothers longer maternity leave

By Tan Tarn How

IT WILL work, it won't work - and it may even backfire. These divergent conclusions sum up the reactions from readers to a proposal to solve Singapore's baby dearth by extending maternity leave to up to six months.

However, others among the more than 60 who e-mailed The Straits Times with their views yesterday said maternity leave is but one consideration, as bringing up children is a task that continues beyond the first six months of their lives.

Many said pro-family practices in the workplace and a less stressful overall environment here are just as important if couples are to be encouraged to start a family - or to have more children.

Mr Yak Chin Hua applauded the idea of giving mothers an extra two to four months of leave on full or half pay. He felt it will give a boost to the birth rate here over the long-term.

A government committee looking to jump-start the plummeting birth rate noted on Tuesday that the 36,000 babies born last year was a unprecedented low.

Another reader, Mr Aziz, agreed with Mr Yak, but thought an additional two months - on top of the two months mothers are now entitled to, by law, for the first three children - was enough.

The salary they receive during this extra period should be half what they would normally draw, and should be borne equally by the Government and employer.

Alternatively, Mr Lim Lee Eng proposed a sliding scale of leave depending on the birth order of the child.

Give first-time mothers eight weeks of leave and build it up to 20 weeks of leave for those who are having their fourth child, he said. That would surely encourage women to have more children.

'If six months of paid maternity is to be given to the first child, then where is the incentive for couples to have more kids?' he reasoned. A Mrs Ng suggested additional leave should be made mandatory.

But give women some flexibility: Mothers could be given the choice of two months' leave at full pay - or a longer period at lower pay.

Valerie wanted to see the Government foot the full bill. She feared companies will otherwise not give their support to such proposals.

And while Ms Mira welcomed the possibility of longer maternity leave, she wanted to know if paid leave would also apply to the fourth child.

Several readers also raised concerns about what extended maternity leave may mean for the mother who is away from the office. Having that extra time is good. But will four months away be too long?

A company may start to think an employee who is absent that long is dispensable - and may not want her back, said Ms Eunice Goh.

Mr Paul Sim appeared to have a solution: Working mothers should be given an assurance that employers will 'welcome them back without any conditions attached'.

Ms Linda Lim saw things differently. Her worry is that the proposed changes may prompt some employers not to hire married women who may go on to have children.

The result: 'Ambitious working women will rather remain single or choose to co-habitate with their partners in order not to jeopardise their career opportunities.'

She added: 'Even those who may have wanted to set up a family will hesitate if they are not able to survive with just the man's income.'

Perhaps a solution to concerns about extended maternity leave lies with an idea put forward by Mr Ivan Goh. He suggests companies offer 'childcare leave'.

The idea is that parents get a certain number of days off each year during the first decade after their child is born. They can use these to attend to matters affecting their children.

Still, there were others who felt that longer maternity leave opened up a whole new set of problems.

Ms Philicia Chan sounded a reminder that the demands of being a wife, mother and housewife meant being 'a superwoman' to keep everything in balance. And these are tasks that last beyond any six-month period.

Her idea - pay mothers an allowance, say $300 a month, to stay at home for the first six years.

Concerns about the attitudes of bosses and companies prompted a number of readers to stress the importance of practices in the workplace that can help ease the demands of parenthood.

And to encourage companies to give more maternity leave or have pro-family policies, they should be given financial incentives so their bottom lines will not be affected.

Ms Annie Chia asked for a five-day work week for all working mothers and tax breaks for companies which employ them.

Many others who e-mailed suggestions yesterday agreed that money talks. They asked for a range of things like lower maid levies for mothers, subsidies for fertility treatment and even for adopting babies from abroad.

Mr Kanagasabai Haridas lamented that whatever steps are taken on the birth dearth, one issue that must be overcome is the mindset here that 'children are a hindrance to career objectives'.

This line was also taken by Mr Daniel Chan, who argued that in Singapore, 'we cannot have both a strong and competitive economy and a productive birth rate'.

Why? Because focusing on one leaves little time for people to pay attention to the other.

Against such a backdrop - and perhaps tongue-in-cheek - Mr Haridas appeared to agree, and said, in fact, he has noticed that more young couples here 'are keeping pets as substitutes for children'.

One reader also reacted to the article yesterday where social development officer Lau Say Wei - the unofficial 'matchmaker' at the Singapore General Hospital - lamented the herculean task of finding partners for the 2,100 people under her watch.

Mr Kenny Choo shot this e-mail from the United States to offer a solution: 'I really wish SDOs would organise such singles events in Silicon Valley, California, where there would be no problem finding 1,800 highly-educated, quality men to fill those spots.'

'Nice perks but we'll take our time, thank you'

By Soh Wen Lin and Tee Hun Ching

DESPITE a slew of stork-friendly carrots the Government has thrown up for consideration, couples do not seem to be biting yet. Of the 20 couples with no children or with one child polled yesterday by The Straits Times, only two said they were more encouraged to have children.

Ideas outlined by the Government on Tuesday include longer paid maternity leave, extending financial support, expanding infant and childcare services, and promoting a work-life balance through family-friendly practices in the workplace. Childless couples and those with one child are among the core groups the Government is targeting to help plug the baby dearth.

Teacher Wong Mei Ee, 30, who got married last year, seemed won over, especially by the extended maternity leave. She said the incentives 'increase my motivation to have a kid by 50 per cent'. However, the trend that emerged from the telephone poll was that while all appreciated the enhanced perks, the perks would not hurry their decision.

Corporate communications executive Carrie Ho, 26, said the measures alleviate some concerns she and her husband of four years have, especially about cost. However, echoing the views of other childless couples, she added: 'They won't prompt me to say: 'Hey, let's have a baby now.' The question is whether we're mentally prepared for one. That's a bigger 'monster' than the issue of cost.'

Those who already have a child frequently cited lack of time as a dampener on having another. In dual-income families, quality time with one child already suffers, they said.

Corporate communications manager Phyllis Lim said she and her lecturer husband sometimes can't be home for dinner with their seven-year-old daughter. Civil servant Alvin Chong, father of a 14-month-old boy, added: 'The key consideration is whether you have time to enjoy and nurture your child. Everything else is secondary.'

This is why a more pro-worklife approach got the thumbs-up from five couples. Circulation service executive Coral Ang, 31, said a flexi-work arrangement will allow parents more time with their kids without jeopardising the family finances.

And if employers can guarantee a job will be kept for up to a year when mothers go on no-pay leave, it will alleviate fears about job security, she added. Home-based infant-care services would also encourage her to have another child, the mother of a 16-month-old boy said.

Regional sales manager Sharon Low, 29, thought making maternity leave more flexible may help couples juggle their time better. Instead of taking the six months at one go, she suggested mothers be allowed to take it any time they choose before their children turn six.

While the 'to have or not to have' debate rages on for some, others can only pine for the stork. Arts manager Celeste Yeo, 38, for instance, had two miscarriages in 2002 and has been trying for a child since: 'Reading all the news about baby blues is a little upsetting to me. Some people can have a child but choose not to. And here I am thinking: 'Why don't you have one for me?' '

Nanny matching is a hit

By Wong Sher Maine

IN JUST three days, a new programme to match babies to nannies has drawn more than 175 couples and 250 nannies across the island. Most approached the 10 childcare centres offering the service even before the scheme started on Monday. They had read newspaper reports in January about the Family Day Care Service, started by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports.

Said Ms Nancy Lee-Wong, director of the Jenan Care and Development Centre in Mountbatten Road: 'Parents were calling us soon after they read of the service. The response from potential nannies was overwhelming. Our recruitment booth was crowded with women who want to stay at home and earn a living.'

The 10 centres also took out advertisements and went on roadshows to recruit nannies, who must be above 21 and have at least two years' experience taking care of children. They can earn $500 to $625 a month. The centres receive up to $30,000 a year from the Government to offer the service and they will pay for the nannies' training.

Potential nanny Veronica Poh signed up at the Cherie Hearts Child Development Centre in Upper East Coast Road. She quit her job as an accountant last month to be a full-time mother to her two daughters, aged three and two months, and the programme allows her to earn some money. Said Mrs Poh, 32: 'Looking after another child will be like having a playmate for my daughters.'

For the parents who have signed up - some of whom have not even given birth - the plus in hiring these nannies is the convenience of a caregiver who lives near them and has childcare experience.

Said Mrs Anne Masurie, 40, an administrative officer whose first child is five months old, and who will meet the prospective nanny from Cherie Hearts next week: 'I'd like to go back to work and I want to find a caregiver who is professional and will treat my child like her own.'

To find a home-based nanny, visit www.mcds.gov.sg and look under What's New.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-04/H4_0304.jpg
'Looking after another child will be like having a playmate for my daughters.'
- Mrs Veronica Poh, 32, who signed up as a nanny with the Cherie Hearts Child Development Centre in Upper East Coast Road with daughters Valerie, three, and Denise, two months.
-- PHOTO: CHEW SENG KIM

MPs set to fill the House with baby talk

Next week's Budget debate will feature a slew of suggestions by MPs on how to get more Singaporeans to start families

By Eugene Low

MPS want Singapore to have the right baby formula so badly that talk of babies will reign during the two-week Budget debate which starts on Monday.

Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) has even put aside her other pet concern - health - and will take to the floor repeatedly to speak on procreation. 'I intend to suggest new or enhanced incentives in 28 areas,' she said.

These will run the gamut from financial incentives like tax rebates and government subsidies, to childcare facilities and family-friendly policies such as longer maternity and paternity leave. Said Dr Neo: 'Instead of looking at just the costs of parenting, we should emphasise the joy that comes from having children.'

Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah GRC) is also calling for a holistic approach: 'The soft and hard infrastructure, such as a pro-family workplace and a change in employers' mindsets, must be put in place.'

Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged this in his Budget speech last Friday. 'A comprehensive approach should include adequate support facilities such as infant and childcare arrangements, better balance between work and family life, and of course financial help measures,' he noted. Only 36,000 babies were born last year - a historic low and fewer than the 50,000 babies needed if replacement levels are to be maintained.

On Tuesday, a committee headed by Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office, said the Government is considering giving women up to six months of maternity leave in a bid to boost births. However, some MPs were concerned about the impact on firms, saying employers might discriminate against expectant mothers or young married women.

As for encouraging singles to tie the knot, Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) is suggesting help be given to enable them to get married earlier. 'The average couple take quite a while to save money for marriage and housing. We should reduce the cost of setting up a family, perhaps by further increasing public housing grants,' he said.

As for those who are married, Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) hoped fewer will call it quits. She will address rising divorce rates. 'Stress is often cited as a major factor in the breakdown of marriages. I will argue for a five-day week and more flexible working hours.'

Opposition MPs also plan to join the baby debate, with Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia looking to touch on why Singaporeans are not having children. Possible reasons include work stress and high costs.

The perennial issue of business costs will also feature prominently in the upcoming debate, with several MPs slated to speak on the need to keep a lid on rising expenses. 'Other than wages, the issue of cost was not addressed in the Budget,' said Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio GRC).

His recommendations: Lower land costs and make utilities charges more competitive. The Government should also cut costs aggressively - a point Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Aljunied GRC) will take up as well.

^^Whoah.. that's a lot of articles.. I'm so blur (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80869&perpage=20&pagenumber=11) :D

Originally posted by huaiwei

Not so sure what you mean by the first sentence?
I just wanna have a big family and contribute with maximum no. of kiddies. And yes you do know what I mean ;) :angel:

Originally posted by Jo

^^Whoah.. that's a lot of articles.. I'm so blur (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80869&perpage=20&pagenumber=11) :D


I just wanna have a big family and contribute with maximum no. of kiddies. And yes you do know what I mean ;) :angel: Haha...cant be helped..its like an average of 4 articles coming out each day...its the big news over here on the sterile island now. ;)

Are you sure were "blurred" by it all eh?? :colgate: But nvm....big families are welcome...that is the take home message. ;)

Well....I hope I do know what you mean, coz I seem unable to understand if you are saying its high or low! :colgate:

The baby stakes

YOUNG marrieds, future marrieds and the married childless face an Everest of a proposition: Raise the nation's procreation rate by 39 per cent so as to slow down population decline, at the least. In absolute terms, births which fell to 36,000 babies last year must go up to 50,000 a year. It will raise the total fertility rate (TFR) to about 1.8 from the current record low of 1.26, but short of the 2.1 at which the population stays constant. 'It will be a great achievement,' was how Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Hng Kiang put it at a briefing on Tuesday. The comment does not begin to describe the scale of the turnaround demanded. Since 1980 the TFR has declined by 30 per cent. This has happened in spite of a bewildering variety of financial and tax incentives, as well as administrative concessions like priority upgrading to bigger HDB flats for those who have more than two children. Studies could well establish that weak economic conditions and a worsening in the region's security situation had a bearing. The recession of the mid-1980s saw a dip in births. The spurt of terrorist activity and violence in South-east Asia which followed the 2001 strikes on the United States saw a marked dip. Coincidence? This happened after the offer in 2001 of the famous Baby Bonus cash giveaways. It is possible the decline will continue into this year as job losses of the past two years have darkened the outlook for many young couples.

Mr Lim, whose PMO brief includes devising ways of making more births happen, cannot be expected to divine how geopolitical shifts would influence couples not to bring children into an unsafe, uncertain world. But really, his assignment is an impossible one as it is more about grappling with probabilities and variables, and less with immutables. The immutables are straight incentives, as with all the institutionalised concessions. They have worked, although some have produced better results - like tax rebates and enhanced child relief - than others. More immutables are being worked on or refined. The most exciting is the prospect of paid maternity leave of up to six months, although the Government should expect that full tax-payer funding beyond the first two months would leave non-working women embittered. Don't they count? How are they to be empowered? Other measures are pro-forma: Better child and infant-care facilities, more financial support and a refining of existing incentives. But employers need coaxing to come up with workplace practices that would smoothen the transition to parenthood for female workers.

These are pro-active, sensible measures. About the only question marks would be the degree of acceptance by companies and the enterprise shown by providers of child and infant care. They can be persuaded, as always, with financial lures. But Mr Lim also noted that the declining birth rate reflected the three broad trends of singlehood, later marriage and family formation, and desire for smaller families. These are variables which can skew the outcome expected of immutables. None is more problematic than singlehood. Among those aged 40 to 44, singlehood has accelerated over the years. Demographers have their theories, a favoured one being career advancement and the related selfishness that comes with the notion of independence. The population-procreation issue eventually is likely to be decided on this mother of variables: How to manage or finesse the worldwide trend among the career-minded to put off marriage for as long as they are enjoying their single status. This will be awfully hard to influence.

"You know when you are in Singapore forum:

..when the amount of articles blur you beyond recognition."
..for me at least. Maybe because I didn't read them.. you got me :)

Now I'm the one who don't know what you mean - 'high or low'? :uh: ;)

Let me know and I'll let you know which one it was :colgate:

If you dont want to have children, then might as well give them away! :D

Sorry, the bank's out of eggs and sperm

Supplies are dwindling or non-existent at hospitals here; for couples desperate to have a baby, the wait can be up to 2 years

By Wong Sher Maine

MARTHA'S periods stopped when she was 16 because she had no more eggs in her ovaries. When she got married at 25, she cried over the fact that she would have to take eggs from a donor if she wanted to have children. But two years ago, the secretary decided that was the only way to go.

Then she was told by Singapore General Hospital that there were no donors and she would have to wait. 'It didn't occur to me that there would be no eggs. I just assumed that when I needed them, I'd be able to get them,' said Martha, now 29, who declined to use her real name for the interview.

Now, she is worried that by the time her turn comes, she will have problems carrying the baby to term due to her age. Both the supplies of eggs and sperm for infertile couples like Martha and her husband are dismal and their frustration is growing.

There are three egg and sperm banks here: at KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), and at the National University (NUH) and Singapore General (SGH) hospitals. Both SGH and the KKH are out of eggs and have waiting lists of 10 women and nine women, respectively. At SGH, only two women donated eggs last year and the average waiting time for an egg there is two years.

The figures for donated sperm are not much better. At SGH, the number of couples needing sperm each year over the last five years has ranged from 14 to 28, but the number of donors fell from 20 in 1992 to just three last year. The hospital's sperm bank supplies, which can be stretched as one donor's sperm can be used to father up to three live births, will dry up within the next three years if more donors do not come forward.

A gynaecologist, who declined to be named, said: 'It's simply not in our culture for someone to step forward and donate his sperm.' KKH had just one donor in 2000, two in 2001 and five in 2002. The hospital currently has 11 couples on its waiting list and no sperm. They will have to wait for up to one year before they have a shot at conception through donor sperm. Figures were not available from NUH.

The problem is more acute for those who require donor eggs as the procedure for obtaining them involves the donor undergoing hormone injections to stimulate production, plus surgery to remove them. So the hospitals have encouraged these women to bring in their own donors, usually sisters or good friends, so they do not have to wait.

They have also tried getting some women who are undergoing in-vitro fertilisation - in which their own eggs are used, but fertilisation is carried out externally by doctors - to donate some of the 10 to 15 eggs harvested to the egg bank. 'Since we take out so many, we usually appeal to these women. Some say yes,' said Dr Julianah Abu, an SGH obstetrician and gynaecologist who runs the sperm bank there.

For most of those in need of such help, however, things are not expected to change for some time. Others, like Martha, are preparing themselves for the fact that, even if they do get to the front of the queue, it does not mean the procedure will be successful. In fact, they may never bear a child.

She has already started scouring the telephone directory for the names of adoption agencies. 'This is my last resort. I just can't bear the thought of not having a child to bring up and love,' she said.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-05/H8a.jpg
Embryos, or fertilised eggs, are kept in nitrogen-filled tanks maintained at a temperature of minus 196 deg C till they are needed. -- STEPHANIE YEOW

SPERM DONATION

• A DONOR must be between 18 and 40 years old.

• He writes down his medical history and indicates if his family has a history of any diseases.

• He gives the hospital a sperm sample, which he can collect at home and deliver within the hour, or produce in the hospital. He has to abstain from sex for two days before giving the sample.

• The sperm is assessed by doctors to determine whether it is healthy.

• If it is, the donor goes through physical and psychological examinations, where he is interviewed so doctors can make sure he is donating sperm for the right reasons.

• He undergoes blood tests to make sure he is free from diseases like Aids and hepatitis B.

• He returns to the hospital to give another three to four sperm samples.

• He gets a token sum of $150 from the hospital.

• Six months later, he turns up for blood tests to make sure he is still free from diseases. If he passes these, then his sperm is deemed usable.

* Information from the SGH Centre for Assisted Reproduction

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-05/H8b.jpg
The sperm is placed in tubes and frozen with liquid nitrogen to a temperature of minus 196 deg C for storage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EGG DONATION

• THE donor must be between 18 and 35 years old.

• She writes down her medical history and indicates if her family has a history of any diseases.

• She goes through physical and psychological examinations, where she is interviewed so doctors can make sure she is donating eggs for the right reasons.

• She undergoes blood tests to make sure she is free from diseases like Aids and hepatitis B.

• She undergoes counselling by the doctors so she is fully aware of what she will be put through.

• For two to four weeks, she needs daily hormone injections to stimulate her ovaries so more than one egg will ripen. She can learn to inject herself or go to the hospital every day to get it done. The side effects of these jabs: bloatedness, nausea and mood swings.

• She goes through an operation, while under sedation, where an ultrasound probe with a fine needle at the end is inserted into her vagina and into her ovaries.

• About 10 eggs are extracted.

• She gets a token sum of $150 from the hospital.

• Six months later, she turns up for blood tests to make sure she is still free from diseases. It she passes these, her eggs are deemed usable.

* Information from the SGH Centre for Assisted Reproduction

Flexible work hours for mums still rare

In last 5 years, just 900 of 60,000 civil servants had flexi-work arrangements to care for children

By Soh Wen Lin

FOR a year after her first child was born, civil servant Karen (not her real name), 30, worked from home. She attended office meetings twice a week, and other events held by the ministry if her presence was required.

She is in an exclusive club. Only 900 civil servants had some kind of flexi-work arrangement for childcare reasons over the last five years.

While the Public Service Division (PSD) described such successful flexi-work arrangements as a rising trend, some human resources practitioners say that, given the size of the 60,000-strong civil service, the numbers are 'rather dismal'.

The civil service also said that in the same period, about 3,000 employees - men included - took unpaid leave to look after their children. Again this was a rising trend, the PSD said. There were no figures immediately available for the wider public sector - which would include bodies such as statutory boards.

While the public sector sees itself a leader in promoting pro-family work policies and has clear guidelines, anecdotal accounts suggest that implementation can be patchy.

When Ms Wee Pei Yean, 33, gave birth to her first child in January last year, for example, she had almost a year off. The JTC Corp employee of more than nine years was granted nearly nine months of unpaid leave. 'My boss did sit me down to warn me that when I came back I could possibly be put on a slower career track. But he said that, as a friend, he felt I was doing the right thing,' she said.

However, most situations are likely to be more similar to Ms Christina Keok's case. The 35-year-old senior pharmacist at KK Women's and Children's Hospital went from a 40-hour work week to a 25-hour week three years ago after having her second child.

And that was only after negotiating for part-time work with three bosses: her immediate supervisor and higher-ups. 'Three years ago part-time work wasn't so accepted. But I can see that culture is changing,' she said.

Administrators at three hospitals said the nature of work for front-line employees meant staff such as nurses could make loose arrangements with colleagues to cover their shifts. Still, some civil servants said it was the luck of the draw which determined if they worked under pro-family supervisors.

In Karen's case her initial request for unpaid leave was rejected: 'My boss said if she let me go, it would send a signal that my position was dispensable - and the big bosses would try to cut that position later.'

A ministry department head said: 'How generous we can be depends on the size of our department. If we're stretched, sometimes maintaining productivity levels has to come first.'

Public sector employees and HR practitioners agreed that while guidelines are laid down, not all managers may be in step with the push for a more family-friendly workplace.

And increasing their numbers does not come from laying down even more rules and policies, said Singapore Human Resource Institute executive director David Ang.

A pro-family department will only happen if top management look into individual employees' situations themselves.

Karen can attest to that. She believes her application to work from home was approved because she approached her pro-family minister. 'Once he said 'yes', everyone below him had to follow.'

BEING FAMILY FRIENDLY: THE CIVIL SERVICE WAY

• NO-PAY leave for childcare up to a maximum of four years for each child below four years old, for married women.

• Part-time employment up to three years, regardless of the age of the child, for married women.

• Full-pay unrecorded leave of five days per year to look after a sick child below 12 years old, up to a maximum of 15 days per year for three or more children below 12 years old, for married men and women.

• Three days of paid marriage leave for the first marriage.

• Three days of paternity leave for the first three children.

• Teleworking, where practical, is allowed as an alternative working arrangement, especially those with young children.

• Ministries and departments can implement flexi-time, provided there is no loss of productivity and lapse in service standards to the public.

This is really on the news everyday!

btw I read somewhere that someone had a crazy notion that we can have 8 million people :dizzy:

Maybe they will be slightly happier if you come back here? :D

Wanted: Eggs for the infertile

By Wong Sher Maine

HOW do you react when a friend asks for your eggs? Do you feel angry, flabbergasted or honoured?

At that moment, all I could feel was sympathy and some guilt. As I sat facing her, 32 weeks' pregnant with my accidental first child, my 30-something-year-old friend told me how she had no eggs to speak of. How she had cried for an hour in the doctor's room when she was told at the age of 18 that her two years of missed periods would go on forever.

She also told me how she had always wanted to have children because she simply loved them. Now, after getting hitched to a man who loves her despite her condition, she has been in the queue for eggs at a local hospital for nearly two years. As her annual calls to the hospital have yielded replies of 'Sorry, the queue has not moved', she is increasingly despondent and cynical.

'Who knows? I may have to wait 20 years before I get an egg,' she says. She could jump queue if she brought in a donor, but the one woman she asked turned her down. She does not want to adopt a child because she wants at least half of the child's genetic material to come from her husband.

Her husband laments: 'All the Government's attention and money is focused on trying to persuade those who refuse to have children, but can, to have them. What about people like us? We are desperate for children but we can't.'

Doctors estimate that one in five couples here have problems with their reproductive hardware. These are not limited to older couples; there are increasing numbers of those in their 20s. If they could all have children, Singapore could easily have its 50,000 live births a year. These couples are probably keeping mum because they are too ashamed to talk about it, much less start a campaign to advertise their plight.

But the infertile do deserve policy attention, and one key area is cost. In-vitro fertilisation, in which the woman's egg is fertilised with her husband's sperm externally before it is implanted in her womb, is costly, at $8,000 to $9,000 a pop. Couples have to try several times before a successful pregnancy is achieved. The Government allows claims from Medisave of up to $4,000 per treatment cycle, for up to three cycles. That adds up to more than $10,000 for the couple.

If the Government is willing to pump in $200 million a year to give women an extra two months' maternity leave at full pay, why not consider giving more financial help to infertile couples - especially those who may have given up the idea of fertility treatment because of cost?

There is also the suggestion to allow Central Provident Fund savings to be used for infertility treatments, a reasonable suggestion given that parents can already use their CPF to finance their children's university education. Like education, children are an investment in the future.

Apart from money, couples who are having difficulty conceiving need more avenues they can turn to for help. Medical fertility clinics cater to couples who are already aware that they have a biological problem.

But how about those who are unsure? Groups like the Family Life Society and Alife are non-profit volunteer-run outfits which offer non-medical advice to couples, like how to time sexual intercourse to coincide with the woman's ovulation periods.

It may seem overly simple, but since a quiet opening in June last year, Alife has had a success rate of 16 couples among the more than 100 couples its volunteers counselled. That is another 16 precious babies for Singapore's dwindling pool, from cheap and fuss-free intervention.

As for those couples who have more complex problems, like those requiring sperm or egg donations, perhaps the only thing that can help is to encourage more people to donate. But even that is difficult as it comes fraught with ethical issues.

The Singapore General Hospital, for instance, proposed to attract sperm donors last year by giving additional perks like free medical check-ups, but failed to get funding for what was seen as an incentive. In the end, whether donors respond is a personal choice.

For me, in my own way, I reckon what I can do to help at least one infertile couple is to donate my eggs.

I have not decided.

Adoption rules get the thumbs up

Many support scheme as it means Govt is watching industry very closely and two agencies have guidelines to follow

By Theresa Tan and Vivi Zainol

THE 49-year-old corporate secretarial executive recalled her shock when an adoption agent phoned her and said: 'I have a baby boy. It's $30,000, do you want?' She told The Straits Times: 'We are talking about human beings here, not goods.'

Finally, she paid an agency $23,000 to adopt a 15-month old baby from Indonesia. 'I feel the house is too quiet without kids and I have a reliable maid to care of them. We did try to have children, but I didn't get pregnant,' she said.

To her, an accreditation scheme makes sense as it means the Government is watching the whole industry very closely and two agents have guidelines to follow.

The people who turn to adoption are usually married couples, say adoption agencies, who had tried and failed to have a baby. Doctors estimate one in five couples here have fertility problems.

Mrs Jane Tay was 27 when she turned to relatives in China for a child in 1995. With the help of a lawyer, she adopted a baby boy who is now nine years old.

'We had some problems conceiving and I went to try for test-tube babies. I spent more than $20,000 and lots of time, but no baby still. So I gave up hope and thought about adopting. I feel my marriage wouldn't last if there are no kids. It's better to have kids around or the house will be so very quiet.'

Touch Community Services and Fei Yue Community Services were picked as agents because, among other things, they fulfilled a key requirement of the Chinese government - they operate as not-for-profit organisations. Also, both have experience investigating the backgrounds of those who want to adopt children.

In 2001, they were appointed by the ministry to do Home Study Reports required by some foreign governments for prospective adopters. India, Thailand and Vietnam are among the countries that stipulate the need for such checks.

There is no ballpark figure of how many people are in the queue at adoption agencies. But in the last four years, Singaporeans have adopted an average of 700 children a year - 62 per cent of whom are foreign-born. Kids and Tots brought in 13 babies from China last year, despite the outbreak of Sars. The usual number is 18 a year.

A partner in the adoption agency, who wanted to be known only as Mr Koh, said he believed his record would convince the Government he could continue bringing in babies from China.

But the channel prescribed by the two governments is 'the only way to process an adoption from China', the ministry spokesman reiterated. 'Any person wishing to adopt a child from China should not approach any individual or any agency, whether in Singapore or in the China, other than the two accredited voluntary welfare organisations for the selection of children to be adopted,' the ministry said in a statement.

Lawyer Amolat Singh thinks accreditation should be extended to adoption of all children from other countries. 'Having the government-accredited agencies will mean there will be proper procedures, control and auditing.'

Asked if the ministry would conclude adoption agreements with other countries, its spokesman it was 'open to working with all countries' which are keen.

Who can adopt?

Under Singapore-China agreement from April 1:

- Singapore citizens
- Between 30 and 55 years old
- Have an annual household income of at least $32,000
- Be physically and mentally healthy
- Have not more than five children
- Have no criminal record of offences such as child abuse, drug abuse or sexual offences.

Touch Community Services and Fei Yue Community Services are the only two agencies which deal with the adoption of children from China. No middlemen, whether relatives in China or private adoption agencies, should be involved.

Long queues likely for babies, say agencies

By Joann Tan

PRIVATE adoption agencies were stunned by news that the China baby market will be closed to them. They predict that the outcome will be long queues for babies given that only two agents have been appointed to handle the adoption process.

Greenhouse Adoption Agency's owner Low Soo Meng said it takes him just three months to match a Chinese child to a prospective parent. 'People come to us because we are fast. This new ruling just holds people back from adopting a child from China.'

With this new ruling, he has to look for other ways to continue his business: 'We have to consider adoption from other countries now.' Mr Richard Teo of Adorable Babies for Adoption agreed it would lengthen the queue. Most of his clients are in their 30s and want children badly. 'I want to bring a bundle of joy to the childless couple, and to give the child a new lease of life with a better future,' he said.

There are 45 adoption agencies registered with the Registry of Companies and Businesses, but not all may be open for business. They have some official guidelines to follow on the process and legal requirements for a foreign child to be adopted here. The Adoption of Children Act also states some conditions, such as the minimum age of adoptive parents, set at 25.

Touch Community Services, one of the two accredited agents, started a non-profit adoption placement arm at the end of 2002. They have helped eight couples so far. The other is Fei Yue Community Services, also a non-profit agency offering social services such as counselling.

Asked if the Ministry of Community Development and Sports has plans to accredit more adoption agencies to bring in babies from China, its spokesman replied that it would only consider applications by non-profit agencies.

They would have to meet standards, such as the ability to assess if prospective adopters are suitable, medically fit and financially able to care for children.

Talking babies

Even as the Government mulls over the best baby-friendly policies to adopt, it knows there is only so much it can do because, ultimately, marriage and parenthood are 'personal choices'. But how do these decisions come about, and what is the role of providence and actual experience in making them? After several days of asking readers, INSIGHT decided to turn the mirror around into the newsroom.

We found a microcosm of society at large: mothers and fathers, married people who don't want children or trying hard to have them, singles who feel their time has passed. A thread emerges: Children are conscious choices now which they weren't for previous generations. Then, having babies was something you just did. Now, an education, a job and enough money for a comfortable life are vital for a life fulfilled. Babies may fit into this modern scheme of things - or not. Even if they do, one, or just two, will do. That above all is the great policy challenge: to turn the wheels back to when people don't think once, much less twice, about having children.

For a long time, three was my magic number

Arnold Gay, 36
Senior Correspondent, Channel i News
Has been married to Deborah, 37, for seven years; son Mark is 2 1/2

THEY say couples who choose to stay childless for fear of losing their lifestyles and freedom are selfish. I suppose there is some truth to that.

I'm not terribly keen to go through another year of the feeding rotation we had put in place for Mark. The system was straightforward: Deb was exhausted by the end of the day, so I had the night shift, waking up every two hours from 2am until about 10am. We call that the lost years, because we don't remember much of anything else.

Nor am I in a rush to go back to playing tag at meal times, with one of us carrying Mark as the other eats. Movies were a rare treat, and friends stopped asking me out because I kept rushing home to my baby.

But all these considerations pale in comparison to the real reasons why we're stopping at one. First and foremost, it's about being there. Every night, when I come through the front door, Mark is ready with a big kiss and a hug.

Then, without fail, he takes me by the hand, and says: 'Daddy, come play.' And I do. Even if there's work to be done, I'll pick up that red bus, or plane, or Hot Wheels car, and mess around with him until he's ready for bed.

Will I be able to give the same kind of love and attention with a second child? I'm not confident of that at all. Lean and mean best describes the team I'm part of at work, and my hours are not going to get any easier. If I do have a second child, I want to able to take her to school, or be there to wipe up a runny nose like I am able to most days with Mark. Oh yeah, and I don't want to feel guilty either, if I have to take time to take him to the doctor's or stay home because he's sick.

I also want my kids to have a more than decent chance of making it out there. Children are a long-term commitment. Take school. What I see my two young nephews, Samuel and Joshua, going through right now scares me. I am encouraged by recent changes in the education system, but, just in case, I've also started setting aside money for Mark's future education abroad. That doesn't come cheap, and another child just divides the funds.

Which brings me to cost. Singapore is expensive, period. So the maths is simple: both Deb and I must work, and hire a maid to help care for Mark. The maid levy and playschool fees are daunting.

Sure, you could argue that Mum could stay home, and look after the baby and the home, with help from Dad, but why should there be that sort of a trade-off? Never mind worries about job security, having a child should not mean having to lower your quality of life dramatically, not especially when the Government can make it cheaper.

I fail to see the logic in making sacrifices just so you can afford another child. Better to pour all your time and money into one, and give him the best you can. From the start, Mark was never about any incentives, or about parental or peer pressure. He was always about the joy of having a child in our lives, the joy that I saw for seven years in my sister's four boys before we had him.

Mark was never meant to be an only child either. For a long time, three was my magic number. Deb was an only child, and always spoke of the loneliness and being a latch-key kid. I have two other younger brothers, and memories of my childhood are filled with family picnics, laughter, and of course the tears and fights.

It was what I wanted for my own family. But the reality of it hit home when Mark arrived. There were moments when I wondered if we had made the right decision.

Deb stopped working at the Fullerton Hotel where she was director of marketing and PR to look after Mark. The bills, the exhaustion and my work stress rose. Her strong nesting instincts were matched by an equally strong desire to excel professionally. We knew then, three was going to take some work.

Now Mum is back at work, happy, but fighting different battles. Guilt at not being there, worrying if Mark is okay, at playschool, at home. We wonder if he's lonely. But we also know that having another child just to make sure Mark is not lonely isn't enough. Couples who do have three, four and even more children are heroes, but I'll also always remember overhearing a mother telling her son: 'Dad and I sacrificed everything for you and your sisters. Don't you ever forget that you ungrateful boy!'

That is not the way I ever want to feel about Mark or any of my children. The dream of three is not dead, and getting my wish list answered may yet change things. But time isn't on our side. I'm 36 and Deb a year older. But ultimately, it's still about really wanting one, before we have another child.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-06/h20a.jpg
It's about being there, whether one more kid would mean less attention, says Arnold, seen here with his family. -- ARNOLD GAY

A baby? Oh no, not if I can help it

Alexandra Ho, 28
Reporter
Channel i News
Married for five months to David, 40, a teacher

FOR as long as I can remember, I never wanted kids. I didn't even think I'd get married. Sure, I played with dolls and had my share of stuffed toys that I treated as surrogate children. But I don't think I could handle the real thing.

No, no, it's not that I hate kids. I really don't. They can be adorable when they are smiling and well-behaved.

The thing is - what do you do with kids? I can handle them for about a minute, asking them what their names are, how old they are, do they like watching Barney And Friends? And then that's it. I am really and truly stuck. I don't know what to do with them any more.

You can't make small talk with kids like you do with adults and it's too long a wait till they can hold proper conversations. I don't even want to think about how to handle them when they start bawling.

It comes back to this incident that has haunted me since I was 13. My mum was babysitting for a neighbour. The baby girl was about a year old and mum had to run to the store to get some groceries. I was to mind the baby for the 10 minutes that she's gone. But that's when all hell broke loose. The baby started bawling its little lungs out the moment mum stepped out of the house.

You can imagine my terror and panic. I tried carrying her, singing to her, feeding her and rocking her. I even begged her to stop. Nothing worked. I was on the verge of tears myself. The baby kept wailing until mum came through the door, took the baby in her arms and guess what? The baby stopped crying.

Perhaps that's a sign that motherhood's not meant for me.

Besides, I have never been maternal. My girlfriends go gaga over those Ann Geddes baby calendars and postcards. I don't. They tell me they can feel their biological clock ticking away. I don't.

Then, there are the other issues that many other couples who've chosen not to have children have mentioned countless times - one of the most important being our independence.

My husband and I are travel buffs. We make it a point to go on holidays or make getaways three to four times a year. You can imagine how the arrival of a baby would bring a definite end to all that. No taking off and going on a whim when we spot a great travel deal.

That's one remark my friends with kids always make when they hear about travel bargains. Their eyes light up when talk turns to travel.

Then wistfulness and reality set in quickly to remind them of the logistical nightmare of taking junior along on a week-long vacation.

In fact, a friend even told me she has not been to the cinema since her eldest came along, let alone leaving the country.

Of course, there are our jobs. That common refrain of 'we don't even have enough time for each other' rings so true in our case. So it would be even tougher for us to make time for one more human being.

I have been asked what could possibly change my mind. More maternity leave? Financial incentives? Barring an accident, I would say, pretty much nothing.

Married late and the clock is ticking

Paul Cheong, 37
Deputy Chief Sub-Editor,
The Straits Times
Married to Executive Sub-Editor Elaine Tan, 38, for four years

MY WIFE Elaine and I are trying for a baby. We married late, and the clock is ticking. We are hoping for a baby soon, but when we do get one, what then? We face obstacles that scare us, and we often discuss the pros and cons, as well as the sacrifices we have to make.

We would both like to keep on working, but we do not have parents here to help us. Hers have emigrated, while my mum lives in Malaysia.

There is no way we would entrust a newborn to a maid, so either Elaine or I will have to stop working for a while, unless one of us can work from home or find a part-time job.

We are willing to make the sacrifices in our careers and standard of living, but are worried. Will we be able to survive on one income, especially since we have to help support our elderly parents? Can we cope with the increasing cost of living?

Is staying home a waste of thousands of dollars our parents spent on our higher education? What happens to our careers - everything we worked so hard for many years to achieve?

What if the one working gets retrenched - will our child suffer through no fault of his? After all, we want to give him the best. But the biggest worry we have is over employers. Already, their response in the media is very negative. Will they rehire Elaine if they find out she takes time off for her family?

The government proposals are unlikely to help us much. We both work at night, so day care is out. Longer maternity leave? But what about after six months? Financial incentives? It will not even come close to making up the loss in pay. Family-friendly policy at work? Will companies still have it once they find out that it affects their bottom line?

The future will be uncertain once we have a baby, but we are plunging into parenthood with our eyes open. We know that having a baby is not a statistic but a serious commitment - raising the child, spending enough time with him and giving him the best we can. It is not a commitment we take lightly.

Many Singaporeans have written to this newspaper, worried about the high cost of having a baby and the pressures they face, especially at work. These worries are not going to stop my wife and I from having our first child. But a second, third or fourth?

Yes.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-06/h20b.jpg
We are hoping for a baby soon but face hurdles that scare us, says Paul, seen here with Elaine.

I wish I were older and not a target

Mak Mun San, 33
Life! reporter,
The Straits Times
Single

I HAVE a confession to make: I hate my age. I will turn 34 in August. But, no, I am not hoping against hope to be younger. On the contrary, I wish I were much older - late 30s, early 40s, whatever.

You see, besides being nearly 34, I also happen to be a woman, and a single one at that. In other words, I am now a prime target of the baby-making committee as I fall into the 'prime fertility years' of mid-20s to mid-30s.

Oh well, perhaps the Cut Waste Panel should set its sights on me too. After all, I am wasting my life and, to put it bluntly, my eggs. Frankly and you may say I am silly, I can't wait to be past my sell-by date. No one will expect me to perform my 'national service' then. Oops, sorry, I am expired. Next.

But please don't get me wrong. I love children. In fact, I adore a friend's 21-month-old son so much that I flew to New Zealand last month just to see him. For two wonderful weeks, all I did was play with the kid and give him a crash course in Chinese.

But that is just about the farthest I would go - pun intended - to satisfy my maternal instincts. Yes, I do love kids - as long as they are not mine.

The reason is very simple, really. The mere thought of having to be responsible for another human being for the rest of my life is enough to make me break out in cold sweat. Shudder.

Am I too self-centred? Maybe. But I'd rather be a self-centred single than a self-centred mum, thank you very much. So I guess that is why marriage never came my way.

Since babies are not on my list of 'must haves', there is no pressing need to grab a husband. Mr Right, or even Mr Left, may have passed me by, I don't know. I wasn't paying attention.

Then, before I knew it, I was 29. It is that age when you have become so comfortable with yourself that you just don't give a hoot about what others think any more.

Give me the joys of romance and companionship, but spare me the nitty-gritty stuff of marriage, please. I have no time and energy for that. I am, after all, nearly 34 going on 45.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-06/h20c.jpg
I can't wait to grow older, says Mak. No one will expect her to do "national service" then. -- FRANCIS ONG

omigod so same! i dont know what to do with children either.

Not stopping at one, my hubby wants four

Wong Sher Maine, 28
Community beat reporter,
The Straits Times
Married project engineer Loh Kar Kheng, 32, last July

AT 3AM on August 25 last year, I sat on my toilet bowl staring at the pregnancy test, my heart and a fair bit of bile in my mouth. I was pregnant? Nothing in the world had prepared me for the honeymoon baby so easily made in a moment of passion.

For one, I always thought I would have problems, for if infertility is associated with work stress and a hectic lifestyle, who could be more in danger than a journalist? For another, the three-room flat which my husband cannot sell for another five years according to HDB rules is a couple's dream, with no walls and platforms, but a danger zone for a baby.

And on a newsdesk where there are only a few mothers among over 50 predominantly women journalists, it is clear that mine is not a baby-friendly job.

But by the time I left for work that August morning, I had started feeling happy about the blossoming cluster of cells in my belly. Yes, the baby had come sooner than expected, but I could think of it as an indication of how unexpectedly efficient we were, rather than as a mistake.

My husband and I - though we never really talked about when to have how many babies - have also never shunned the idea of having kids, which we do not hate or find irritating like some of our friends. If we were meant to have them, we thought, we would be happy about it, rather than having to resort to our planned alternative of rearing dogs to keep us company in our old age if we were barren.

It might have been better, though, if the baby had come according to plan after my husband had fulfilled his dream of getting a master's in a few years' time. Too late for that.

Even if we were not prepared for the baby boy, who is arriving in two months' time, we will cope and adapt as each obstacle comes our way. Home too small? Move back with the parents. Money not enough? Rent out our empty flat.

Job too stressful? Quit - I, not him - if it comes to that. I refuse to fret over what I have to give up, or whether I have enough money to give the baby the best. I would like to think that my parents' generation did a fine job with child rearing and they never strained so hard to think about how to do it. They just had them.

As a mother-friend of mine would say, all a child needs is love. Right now, it is hard to feel motherly or loving when the baby takes my breath away with a hard kick, but I have never felt so alive. Now I am having one, I intend to have more simply because the kid might get lonely. My husband wants four. We'll see.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-06/h21.jpg
I intended to have more simply because the kid might get lonely, says Wong, seen here with Loh. -- CHEW SENG KIM

the negative articles above must be very disheartening for the government, having just introduced ummm those pro-baby stuff... haha

If you dont want to have children, then might as well give them away! :D
I like the idea of helping them out (and of infiltrating the population with little Jo genes). But would they accept a foreigner at the s. banks? ..and since the couples needing it are usually both Asians, I'd guess, then they would not want a Swedish-Singaporean looking kid. ;) You guys should step in to the rescue instead :D

Three to five sperm donors per year and place, that's not much!

You might help to raise the average height here! j/k:colgate:

It has been well-known that eurasian concoctions often produce fantastic looking human beings...the demand might very well be there! :D

Sounds good :)

I wonder how selective the recievers are allowed to be, and what they are told about the donors features. Like race, height etc.

i wonder if there are requirements for donors.... like background check and stuff

Why S'poreans return: They simply miss home

By Li Xueying

THEY had what many Singaporeans covet: permanent residency (PR) in such countries as Australia, the United States and Canada. At their doorsteps were Victoria's bucolic landscape, job opportunities in Manhattan and a laidback lifestyle in Vancouver, fringed by water and mountains.

But some have chosen to return home, turning in their green cards, or letting their PR lapse. Why? Some felt like outsiders in their adopted countries. Others felt discriminated against. Many simply missed home. It's not known how many have given up their overseas PR, as host countries either don't monitor numbers or say the data is confidential. But they did give numbers for Singaporeans granted PR.

Between 1998 and 2002, 2,418 were granted green cards, said the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Australia granted PR to 6,506 Singaporeans between 2000 and last year, said its High Commission here. Last year, Canada granted immigrant visas to between 950 and 1,000 people who named Singapore as their last country of residence. Some may not be Singapore citizens. Over the last 10 months, 49 Singaporeans have been granted British residency status, and 217 cleared to enter with a view to settling there.

Singapore clubs overseas and lawyers who handle immigration matters said it is a rare Singaporean who chucks his PR status. Lawyer Chen Chun Kiat said: 'It's not easy to get PR and when Singaporeans do, they won't let it go easily.'

But for shipping executive Z.Q. Tang, 42, coming home was a clear-headed decision. 'All my friends asked if I was crazy,' he said wryly, recalling their disbelief when he left in 1994, giving up his green card after 10 years in San Francisco. Racism, he said, had disabused him of any rose-tinted visions he'd once had of spending his life in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

'Like it or not, your skin colour is an issue,' he said, from colleagues joking about his lunch - 'something moved on the plate, eh?' - to strangers telling him to 'return to your own country'. Once, two Americans who had taunted him while he was driving, punched him till his face was bloodied. His mother, unused to the lifestyle, had returned to Singapore a few years before he did. He said: 'Really, you're not one of them, and never will be, no matter how hard you try to speak, think and act like them.'

His unhappy experience may seem extreme but he is representative of the single professionals who find it easier to up stakes again and come home if things don't pan out as they want. Those who have transplanted their children to a new country usually try harder to stick it out.

To retain one's PR status, one has to fulfill certain requirements such as spending a certain period of time in the country, and demonstrating a genuine commitment to settling there. Australian PRs, for instance, must chalk up at least two years' residence every five years. Businessman Joe Patrick, 41, didn't.

When he was a 24-year-old graduate, he found Singapore 'too small and stifling'. In 1987, wanderlust drove him to settle in Australia, where he worked as an accountant in Sydney. I romanticised the idea of big, open spaces, living and working in a different country with a different lifestyle,' he said. He liked it there, but came home after two years. His sister was getting married, his family was still here, and he had 'gotten the travel bug out of my system'.

It was also family ties that pulled training consultant Wang Decheng, 49, home eventually. In the 1980s, he badly wanted to work in the US, and hoped that getting Canadian PR would help. He applied in 1998, spent $2,000 on interviews and medical checkups and visited Vancouver looking to buy a home. Yet, he let his PR lapse last year. 'I love Vancouver, it's beautiful,' he said wistfully.

But sitting at a cafe one morning, it struck him as 'ridiculous' that he was there alone, while his family, including his 80-year-old mother, were in Singapore. Having opened his own consultancy business in Singapore, he's also no longer enamoured of working in the US. 'In the end, it was about me and my comfort zone. About family, friends and knowing instantly who to call if I need a plumber or doctor.'

TRAGIC BATTLE AGAINST BIRTH DEFECT
'We knew our baby would die'

Diagnosis of severe congenital heart defect did not deter the Tams from having their baby

By Ben Nadarajan

THEY knew it would be a miracle if she lived beyond two weeks. But the Tams decided against an abortion. Born on Feb 15, their daughter Shai-Ann Kaela lived only eight days.

Four months into the pregnancy, an ultrasound scan revealed a severe congenital heart defect, one of the hardest to treat, said National University Hospital senior consultant Quek Swee Chye. The left side of the baby's heart, which supplies oxygen to the vital organs, had not developed properly.

It happens to one in every 10,000 babies. In this predicament, every other parent would have chosen an abortion. 'We often stress to parents that there is no wrong choice,' said KK Women's and Children's Hospital consultant cardiologist Tan Teng Hong.

Mrs Stephanie Tam, 28, a housewife, and her husband Joel, 29, who runs a Web-design company, also have a year-old son. They decided on an abortion, then had a change of heart. 'We felt we should give our child a fighting chance. Even if we had just one day with her, it would be special enough,' he said. 'By that time, she was already part of the family. She was already kicking and I could feel her move inside me,' said Mrs Tam.

Shai-Ann was born a pink and healthy-looking 3.16kg and crying like any newborn. Then she was rushed into intensive care and tubes were attached to help her breathe because she started to look a little blue, a sign that she lacked oxygen. A scan showed the defect was still there.

Mr Tam wept. It took a while before he could bring himself to tell his wife the bad news. She recalled: 'He came in slowly, nodding his head, and was very quiet. I was eating and my fork stayed in mid-air for some time after he said what I didn't want to hear.'

For such babies, the only chance is either a heart transplant or multi-stage operations to make the right side of the heart take over the functions of the left side. Untreated, 90 per cent die within a month, said Dr Tan.

The odds were so poor and the cost was nearly $250,000. If Shai-Ann survived, she'd always be on medication and in and out of hospital, and her heart could still fail at any time. No surgery, they decided.

Shai-Ann came off the respirator and out of the ICU after three days because she was breathing well on her own. The feeding tube and drip came off soon after. She could cry, feed and even pass motion. That same day, she opened her eyes for the first time.

But the next morning, she began gasping for breath. She had to be sedated. 'It was so painful to see her struggling. I had to look away. But I kept looking back as I wanted to be sure she was still alive,' said Mrs Tam.

But Shai-Ann's heart rate just kept sinking. 'I carried her in my arms and told her how much we love her and how much we'll miss her. We saw her breathing slow down and then she took one long breath and was gone,' said Mr Tam. Weeping, they held on to her for half an hour before letting go.

Shai-Ann was cremated on Feb 24 in a white dress with ribbons, the first and last they would buy for her. Her ashes are in the Tams' flat in Punggol. Wrapped around it is Cookie Monster, their son's first soft toy, and other toys.

They had planned to have three children. Now, they want four. If you ask the Tams now how many kids they have, the answer comes swiftly and firmly: 'Two.'

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/mnt/media/image/launched/2004-03-07/news14b.jpg
A fighting chance - that's what Mr and Mrs Tam wanted to give their baby girl, Shai-Ann Kaela.

FIND OUT EARLY

Prenatal ultrasound: To spot defects (if the baby lacks a skull, for example, or if certain organs are not developed properly) in a foetus.

Blood tests: To check for blood diseases or infections such as hepatitis.

Chorionic Villi Sampling: Picks up chromosome defects such as Down's syndrome.

Amniocentesis: Detects genetic disorders such as cystic fibrosis or thalassaemia (a severe form of anaemia).

Very few conditions, even if detected, can be treated before birth. Those that can be include bladder-neck blockage (where the baby's bladder becomes bigger than normal) or, in rare cases, where the baby's blood is not compatible with the mother's. The main purpose of pre-natal checks is to ensure that doctors are alerted to potential problems at birth.

Oh baby, baby, it's a harsh world

By Chua Mui Hoong

SO THE Government is thinking of throwing $28,000 at working women to get them to have a baby. That's the average amount that an additional four months of maternity leave will cost, using the Government's own estimates of a $400-million payout to raise total fertility rate to 1.8.

There were 36,000 babies last year, and the state hopes to see the numbers go up to 50,000, which means a top-up of 14,000 babies. Divide $400 million by 14,000 and you get about $28,000.

I'm sorry to be a wet blanket but I doubt the money, by itself, is going to make a big difference. If we're really lucky, and if all the holistic measures such as promoting a better work-life balance and creating a more child-friendly society take root, we could get maybe another 20 per cent babies, to 43,200 in a few years' time.

But do we want to throw $400 million at the pro- blem? Even supposing that we do, consider, first, those who will be left out of the proposal to extend maternity leave benefits:

Group 1: The women who have already left the workforce to care for Baby No. 1. They are not working, so will not be eligible for maternity leave. But if they want another child, why not support them, too?

Group 2: The couples who would love to do their 'national duty' by having children, but cannot conceive. They would likely have spent thousands on unsuccessful fertility treatments.

In the end, they may have to fork out another $20,000 or so to adopt a baby from overseas. The current proposal to extend maternity leave leaves them out in the cold. Is there a way to support such pa- rents?

Group 3: All those without children. The personal income tax rate was supposed to be cut this year, but wasn't. Result: an extra $400 million revenue in the government coffers, exactly the amount the Government is mentally prepared to set aside to create a baby boom.

I don't know about you, but the thought of my hard-earned tax dollars going to persuade spoilt young couples to have children is rather galling. After all, having children should be its own best reward. The way I see it, money won't make couples change their mind about having children - at best, it can only support those who have already decided they want children.

That being the case, maybe we should look at how to support those who do want children but face difficulties. In the spirit of consultation and throwing up ideas for discussion, here are some possibilities raised during a discussion I had with some people recently:

- Save some babies from abortion.

Each year, thousands of babies are aborted. We could devote more efforts to saving a fraction of them. Unmarried mothers could be persuaded to carry the baby to full term, rather than abort. And if they do have the babies, maybe some of the baby bonanza the Government is setting aside can be converted into training or education grants for these young women, to help them get their lives in order.

- Help couples adopt.

Those babies saved from abortion could be matched with childless couples who would love to have children but cannot. Many now end up adopting from overseas.

- Foreign-born babies welcome.

Singapore is throwing its doors open to foreign talent, the latest being mid-level skilled workers. How about laying out the welcome mat for babies? After all, if we want Singapo- rean babies, what better way than to get them young and integrate them early into Singaporean families?

- Recognise that singles, too, can be pro-children.

There are many single men and women out there who would like to have children, except they will be frowned upon. Some choose to have children out of wedlock, but lose out on housing subsidies. Singles, especially if they have strong family support, can make good parents. Why penalise those who want to be parents? Maybe the rules can also be made easier to let singles adopt babies, either from those saved from abortion or from overseas.

The above examples all point in one direction: to provide support for those who would like to have children but cannot fulfill their desire. They do not aim to convert those who resolutely remain childless. But they are radical suggestions, cutting at the values system of a largely conservative society.

If you are already frowning disapprovingly, let me add that these are just suggestions thrown up in the spirit of encouraging a no-holds-barred debate on this issue so vital to Singapore's long-term future.

Baby debate takes centre stage

Budget debate begins, with MPs focusing almost entirely on the complex, critical issue of redressing the dearth of babies

By Tan Tarn How

THE start of the annual marathon Budget debate in Parliament yesterday turned into an earnest debate to cure Singapore of its Baby Blues instead. As a result, traditional Budget staples such as investment and income tax were sidelined as one Member of Parliament after another stood up to apply their collective minds to the burning topic of the day: Making Singapore more stork-friendly.

Yet, as they made clear, overcoming the baby dearth has as much to do with the long-term wealth and health of the nation as any of the more typically Budget-related issues. As Madam Ho Geok Choo (West Coast GRC) put it: 'We need a certain critical mass of a citizen base... if we want to maintain our competitiveness in the new economy.'

Of the 25 MPs who spoke over seven hours on the first day of the debate on this year's Government Budget, all but two dwelt on the low birth rate. One common thread that emerged during the Baby Blues Debate was that the reluctance of Singaporeans to have children was a complex, multi-faceted problem that needed many solutions all at once.

Indeed, Jalan Besar GRC MP Lily Neo was compelled to offer no fewer than 28 suggestions on 'producing the next generation of Singapore citizens', a subject first raised by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong in his Budget statement two Fridays ago.

Many like her wanted more financial incentives, but she went the furthest. Asking the Government to put its money where its mouth was, she suggested, among other things, that the baby bonus be doubled to $6,000 for the second child and to $12,000 for the third.

The cost of having a family was a big factor and needed to be addressed, she and other MPs said. But they also put the blame on the 'Singapore system'. These, as they variously described, were the intangibles that work against parenthood: The pressures of the education system, the desire to climb the corporate ladder and the very values that people hold dear.

Mr Loh Meng See (Jalan Besar GRC) said: 'Our people have been chasing academic and material success at the expense of love and joy in building relationships, having children, nurturing and developing them.'

Mayor of Southwest Community Development Council, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, joined him and others in calling for a mindset change. Start early and make the desire to build a family 'a shared national value' while Singaporeans are still in school, she suggested.

Part of the re-education, Mr David Lim (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) said, is letting Singaporeans know that the inconvenience of having babies is more than compensated by the joy they bring. 'This is an emotional motive, not an economic rationale.'

A change in attitudes must also come from the men, three women MPs said. One of them, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade GRC), lamented that women were expected to 'carry the burden, literally, economically and socially' when it should be shared with the husband.

Nominated MP Jennifer Lee agreed, even calling for paternity leave of a month. She also wanted another 'distinctly old mindset' to be discarded: Encouraging only the higher-income to have children even when the baby shortage has become so dire. Instead, the state should welcome every child and devote its resources to those who come from poorer families so they can overcome their disadvantages.

In the end, the debate went far beyond the extended maternity leave which baby czar and Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Hng Kiang unveiled last week as a central plank of new incentives being mooted.

Yes, more leave would encourage more women to conceive, some MPs said yesterday, even as others like Madam Ho Geok Choo feared that bosses might start 'thinking twice' about hiring married women. But they all agreed that maternity leave was just one small piece to solve the baby dearth puzzle.

The debate continues today.

It's family time in the House

The Budget session was awash with sentiment yesterday as MPs, usually stern of speech and dry of eye, swopped baby stories

By Soh Wen Lin

IN A rare departure from heady rhetoric, several Members of Parliament opened their hearts - and family albums - as part of the Budget Debate yesterday. They did so, they said, because convincing Singaporeans to have children was an emotive issue and not just about dollars and sense.

Several fathers, especially, showed an unusual display of tenderness in an arena more used to the rough and tumble of politics. A smiling Mr David Lim (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC), said: 'When my children were young, my happiest moment each day was when I got home after work, and they rushed to the door to greet me.' Now, seeing his two sons and daughter mature and gain confidence warms his heart.

Recognising that parenthood is also bittersweet, father of two daughters Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC), said: 'We have been through their ups and downs, shared with them their trials... There have been times when they made me angry but there are many more moments when they have made me happy and proud.'

Some said the joy children brought outweighed the price of defying the 'Stop at Two' policy. Recalled Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed (Aljunied GRC): 'When I was editor of Berita Harian, I used to write editorials to persuade readers to stop at two, as the situation then warranted such a policy. Personally, however, I felt I could afford and should have more. I am now blessed with four lovely children. People used to stare... when we walked out with four kids. Now, they say we have foresight.' Mr Zainul admitted, however, that 'it was not easy to have three or more kids, especially for the wife'.

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast GRC), who recently had a third child, could not agree more. 'Anyone who uses the phrase 'sleeping like a baby' has no idea what they are talking about,' he quipped, referring to the frequent late-night crying and feedings parents of newborns have to reckon with.

But Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah GRC), who grew up in a family of nine, looked back to a different time when Singaporeans were more relaxed about babies, when another child just meant another 'bowl and pair of chopsticks'. Today, however, he too, like the rest of Singapore had much smaller families. In his case, just one daughter.

Mayor Othman Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC), was also nostalgic about the big family he grew up in, where siblings looked out for each other. Amid so much baby-talk, MPs with few children were not spared. Mr Othman noted that four of the five mayors had set a good example by having three or more children. But he highlighted Mayor Heng Chee How's (Jalan Besar GRC) one-child family. But there was still hope as Mr Heng was 'still young', he said to chuckles from the House.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 things to know

Budget cut worries

A 2 per cent cut in ministries' budgets could force them to cut corners. And the real losers will be Singaporeans, MPs warned. The poor? They could be badly hit, especially if the cuts result in fewer handouts.

SINGH IS THRILLED

It was an about-turn, well almost, for technopreneur Inderjit Singh. Frequently critical of how the Government treats local entrepreneurs, he wore kid's gloves, thrilled by measures such as tax benefits for start-ups. Still, he bemoaned the high business costs here.

NO CHILD'S PLAY

The money factor weighs heavy when young couples decide whether to have children. The cost of educating a child from pre-primary to university? Some say over $77,000.

BABY MATHS

One in five couples here struggles to conceive and few can afford fertility treatments. On the other hand, about 13,800 babies are aborted each year, or one abortion for every three babies born. Time to change the maths, MPs said.

BUTTERFLY EFFECT

To get a baby bonanza, consider the 'butterfly effect', says columnist Chua Mui Hoong. This concept is a good reminder that small, innocuous changes can bring about the desired effect.

Baby, it's about passion, not big bucks

Money talks? MPs pooh-pooh that in baby debate and call for change in mindsets and values regarding family life

By Tee Hun Ching

MR TAN Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC) thinks the solution is to get Singaporeans to be 'passionately romantic' more often, as he put it somewhat coyly. Mr David Lim (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) thinks the answer lies in developing the heartware of Singapore so citizens believe they can bring joy to children. And Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) has 28 suggestions.

Baby talk dominated the seven-hour debate on the Budget yesterday, with 23 MPs rising to give their take on an issue dubbed a national imperative by leaders. If there was one thing the MPs agreed on, it was this: Monetary incentives will not raise the baby count. Instead, it is values and mindsets that need to be changed. The key: Inculcate a pro-family attitude so that a conducive environment for having children is created.

Calling the baby shortage a 'cause' because of its national repercussions, Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Jurong GRC) said: 'Building such a cultural value is not through policies and legislation alone, but through efforts of all stakeholders. Everybody has a stake in this problem.'

Several MPs wanted public education to change mindsets. Glamourise motherhood, said Mrs Lim Hwee Hwa (Marine Parade GRC), adding: 'Mothers should not be viewed as an economic nuisance, just as men are not viewed unfavourably for their reservist obligations.'

Among Dr Neo's 28 suggestions was one for 'aggressive, affirmative publicity' on happy parenthood and the joys that families bring. She wanted nothing less than a total communications onslaught, with values on marriage, relationships and parenting transmitted through schools, religious and community groups and the media. Like other women MPs, she thought it important to send a strong signal that fathers play an equally important role in parenting and proposed that paternity leave be increased from three to 10 days.

To get fathers involved in parenting, Nominated MP Jennifer Lee argued for a parental leave scheme in which mothers get extended maternity leave only if the fathers take a month or more off to care for their child too. She added: 'I can see the looks of disbelief from the front bench but I think it's important to make a start.'

Many MPs called for family-friendly practices at the workplace. Mrs Yu-Foo pushed for flexi-work hours, saying employers should judge workers by their output, not the number of hours worked. She was also in favour of a five-day work week, an issue she had reservations over in the past. But exposure to MNCs like IBM, AT&T and Shell which managed a five-day work week without compromising competitiveness had changed her mind, she said.

While women MPs were vocal in their suggestions, they were quick to point out that this was not a 'women's issue' but one that required the inputs of men, and employers, as well. Indeed, male MPs were not shy about embracing the pro-baby cause.

Mr Tan cited a survey on sexual attitudes and behaviour conducted by condom manufacturer Durex last year, which ranked Singaporeans last in the world for the number of times they had sex in a year. To chuckles from the House, he asked: 'If Singaporeans are firstly not inclined to be passionately romantic, how are we going to produce babies?'

Mr Lim espoused the joys of parenting: 'The only compelling reason why we should bear with the pain, and the cost, and the inconvenience of having babies is the joy they bring. This is an emotional motive, not an economic rationale'. At the end of the day, it is important to nurture the heart of Singaporeans, he said.

Believing that children will bring joy is not enough. People also have to believe they can give their children joy, he said. 'It isn't just about making babies. But it extends to every area of public policy and governance,' he said. 'We need a civil and a civic society, where people believe that this is where their heart and home is.'

Taking stork of dollars and cents

Money no enough, moaned some MPs who said cost was a drawback to having babies, and so was lack of leave - maternal and paternal. And then there was the problem with men. LYDIA LIM reports

MONEY does matter when many parents and parent-wannabes grapple with family planning.

Labour leader Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) said that in dialogue sessions between the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and a few hundred women leaders and activists, 'the feedback that came across loud and clear is that cost is still a major factor affecting a couple's decision on whether or not to have children and if so, how many'. This was not just cost at the time of the birth, she added, but throughout the process, from infancy to adulthood.

Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC) cited a 2002 Straits Times survey that put the cost of a child's education from pre-primary to university at more than $77,000. Throw in the stressful education and working environment and, he said: 'It does not take much logic to reason why many opt to have just one quality child who can take on the world when his or her time comes. 'They can then focus all their resources on that one child.'

Financial constraints are a real concern especially for young couples, said Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC). She thus called for a review of the baby bonus scheme, suggesting that cash gifts be doubled to $6,000 for the second child and to $12,000 for the third. The scheme should also be extended to the fourth child, she said. Noting that the Government paid out $38 million in baby bonuses last year, she said: 'Even if this is doubled, it would be worthwhile for the future of Singapore.' -- Tee Hun Ching

Will mums lose their jobs?

GIVING new mothers more time off is not enough. What they need is more choice on how much maternity leave they can take and when. Mothers also need more safeguards so they can be sure they will still have jobs to return to at the end of their maternity leave.

MPs yesterday offered these and other ideas to refine the Government's latest proposal of up to six months of paid maternity leave per child. Nominated MP Jennifer Lee called longer maternity leave a 'double-edged sword' and noted that this could discourage some employers from hiring women.

Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) noted that most countries which had generous maternity benefits also had laws to protect women's rights to keep their jobs after they returned to work. These countries also had help for women who were discriminated against, she noted.

Even if the Government was not willing to introduce such laws just yet, it should put in place a mechanism to monitor the impact of its policies in this area, she said. 'Otherwise... women will not avail themselves of the longer maternity leave and have more babies because they fear they may lose their job.'

Other MPs suggested that instead of making longer maternity leave mandatory, the Government should allow women to choose how much leave they wanted to take.

Man, what a heavy burden for women

IT TOOK women to point out to the male-dominated House yesterday a stark truth: the dearth of babies is not a 'women's problem'. The present state of affairs leaves women to bear most of the child-rearing burden, several of them said. To set things right, policies must change so that the load can be more evenly shared between husbands and wives, they said.

Leading off the debate on this front was Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade GRC), who said women were expected to 'carry the burden, literally, economically and socially'. 'Shared responsibility for childbearing between the husband and wife must prevail,' said the mother of three. Many women do not end up childless by choice. They do so because they find 'too many hindrances and very little moral support' for mothers, she added.

Madam Halimah Yacob (Jurong GRC) suggested that instead of just longer maternity leave, the Government consider 'parental-care leave' for couples.

And more women should be appointed to the high-level panel of civil servants that has been spearheading the Government's procreation policies since 2000, Mrs Lim said. Called the Working Committee on Marriage and Procreation, there is only one woman on the 11-member panel: Mrs Lim Soo Hoon, the Permanent Secretary for Community Development and Sports.

In search of the butterfly effect to woo the stork

By Chua Mui Hoong

MR LEONG Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) hit the nail on the head in the first day of debate on the 2004 Budget yesterday. Beware the 'butterfly effect' of the 2 per cent cut in ministries' budgets, he said. 'I mean watch out for the rippling repercussions' of the cut across the ministries, he added. Would social programmes be cut, leaving the needy to fend for themselves?

The 'butterfly effect' sums up the essence of Chaos Theory. It was first cited by meteorologist Edward Lorenz in 1972, in a paper titled Predictability: Does The Flap Of A Butterfly's Wings In Brazil Set Off A Tornado In Texas?

There are two key ideas in the theory. One: Seemingly random events (like that butterfly and tornado) actually behave according to some underlying rules. Two: Very small, simple events or changes can result in very big, complex systems or events.

Mr Leong was spot on in warning of the butterfly effects of the budget cuts. He could also have gone further in applying the butterfly effect to babies. What Singapore is trying to do is in effect trying to create a butterfly effect: To spark a change in private behaviour that will result in a baby boom.

The Chaos Theory teaches us a thing or two about how to start. First, it tells us that systems are not simple, but complex. It is essentially a branch of physics describing natural phenomena that turns traditional, deterministic Newtonian physics on its head. When it comes to procreation measures, Newtonian-style, straightforward cause-and-effect policies will not be successful.

Consider that it was only in 2000 that the so-called baby bonus scheme giving cash grants for babies was announced. If parents' wish to have babies were correlated to financial incentives, the birth rate should have gone up. Alas, it did not, and total fertility rate fell to a historic low of 1.26 last year.

The current proposal to extend maternity leave to six months is another example of a policy operating in a world that assumes a predictable cause-and-effect outcome. It is, in itself, a worthwhile proposal. But regardless of whether the money comes from the state or employers, or is shared between the two, and regardless of whether it's mandatory, voluntary or negotiated via collective agreements, one thing is clear: By itself, it is not likely to make couples rush to have babies.

Like the world of turbulent fluids, complex weather systems and the pumping of the human heart that the Chaos Theory tries to describe, the decision to have children is a complex, multifaceted one, not one that can be manipulated by financial incentives.

At the margin, financial incentives may delay or speed up decisions already made. But they are not likely to tip a couple into a decision one way or the other.

MPs were fully aware of this, and were almost unanimous in arguing that procreation policies must be holistic, reorienting the young to appreciate and desire the richness of family life. There was no shortage of suggestions on what had to be done. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Jurong GRC) urged Singaporeans to adopt the 'personal belief' that 'one's major life goal is to have a family and children'.

Others said: Have a proper work-life balance. Change employers' mindset. Introduce flexi-work arrangements. Fix the education system, reduce the stress. Have campaigns to promote parenthood.

There is such a plethora of issues involved, it is easy to get lost in the sheer chaos of it all. It is tempting either to give up and do nothing, or try to do a bit of everything, which would lead to policy incoherence.

Here again, the Chaos Theory helps focus policy thinking. Contrary to its name, the theory does not suggest that complex systems are chaotic. Rather, it postulates that seemingly complex systems can be explained with very simple rules. In other words, small modifications can spark big changes.

Similarly in human behaviour. Small modifications of the right sort, that go to the heart of motivation, can make big changes. The key of course is in figuring out what the 'right' small changes are. This requires understanding the complex system: What is it that makes people want babies and how to encourage that desire?

As Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) noted, a recent survey showed that over 80 per cent of Singaporeans wanted marriage and family life. But in reality, many remain single, childless or have just one child.

What butterfly effect will get them to change their minds? Whatever it is, it probably isn't a linear one of more money, more babies. And it may be a small, seemingly innocuous change. Who knows, perhaps introducing a five-day work week, or urging employers to let workers off early once a week, could do the trick.

Spawning issues

MPs were brimming with ideas on how to boost the birth rate.


THE PRICE OF INFERTILITY

TWO doctor MPs called on the Government to do more to combat infertility among couples, including lifting the cap on the amount of Medisave they could spend on treatments. The cost of a treatment cycle can be up to $10,000 while the maximum Medisave withdrawal is capped at $4,000.

Both Dr Michael Lim (Pasir-Ris Punggol GRC) and Dr Lily Neo (Jalan Besar GRC) also suggested more incentives to encourage donations to the egg and sperm bank, which Dr Lim said had been left 'broke'. Dr Neo also wanted couples to get one week 'procreation leave' for time to seek treatment.

MISSION ABORT ... NOT

LOOK at why there is such a large number of abortions and encourage more women to save their babies, said Mr Heng Chee How (Jalan Besar GRC). About 13,800 abortions take place in Singapore each year, which means that for every three babies born here, one other baby is aborted. Even if the figure goes down by a third, this would boost the number of babies considerably, said Mr Heng.

THE NANNY SPECIAL

TO MAKE up for the nanny shortage, the Manpower Ministry could consider a special nanny pass for foreigners with such skills to come in on a temporary basis to help young parents care for their infants. Mr Ang Mong Seng (Hong Kah GRC) said this would be better than extending maternity leave, which would only create new problems for employers.

DATE AND MATE

MRS Yu-Foo Yee Shoon, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Community Development and Sports, wants young men and women to do community service together for six months after they finish school, and before the men enter national service. This will help them 'develop long-term relationships which could blossom into marriages', she said in Mandarin.

NO TRIPLET DELIGHT

MR CHIAM See Tong (Potong Pasir) urged the Government to welcome 'multiple births' and give parents who have twins or triplets, for example, more of a helping hand. Such parents often feel left out in the cold because if a woman has triplets during her first pregnancy, she is not entitled to maternity leave for her second pregnancy. This is because under current rules, such leave is not granted for the fourth child.

MAKE SPACE FOR BABY

THE Government should make it compulsory for developers to set aside space for a childcare centre for buildings above a certain size, suggested Nominated MP Jennifer Lee. 'The siting of childcare and infant-care centres at the workplace makes life much more convenient,' she said.

LOVE FROM FOREIGN SHORES

MAKE it easier for the foreign spouses of Singaporeans to become citizens, said Mr Tan Soo Khoon (East Coast GRC). Society should not lament the low success rate of the Social Development Unit while at the same time denying happiness to those Singaporeans who 'find love on their own', he said.

All for the little baby

COINCIDENCE or no, the government-sanctioned regulating of adoptions from China, announced last week, highlights the extent of Singapore's low-birth problem. The arrangement between the governments of Singapore and China is meant to ensure that adoption procedures are above board, as they can be ruined by mishandling and exploitation. The emotional pain for both adopter and adoptee can be lasting if it happened. To the extent the agreement will remove even the hint of impropriety or incompetent evaluation of the two parties, this is welcome as adoptions are never a straightforward matter but often emotion-laden. But there can be no suggestion - and none should be inferred - that making adoptions easier and less expensive, even from a variety of countries other than just China, is a feasible method of bumping up Singapore's population numbers. The same reservation would apply to immigration, not unless Singapore stands ready to admit more foreign nationals for eventual settlement than it can comfortably absorb. The solution, or the greater measure of it at any rate, is to be found here at home, in the home. But the bilateral agreement may well be a case of every little bit helps. Figures from the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS) show that Singaporean families adopt on average 700 children a year. Only six in 10 were from abroad, the others being local adoptions. Based on last year's total resident births of 36,000, foreign-born adoptions would make up 1.2 per cent of total births.

But China has such an embarrassment of riches the common assumption among Singaporean couples thinking of adopting a child is that it is the place to look to, as it has margin to spare. Its 1.8 fertility rate is miles ahead of Singapore's 1.3. Its huge population, despite a strict one-child policy, has unwittingly bred a certain level of discrimination against females, although the evidence is more anecdotal than verifiable. Even if not widespread, the social attitude thought to be prevalent in rural provinces does create a readier acceptance for the giving up of girls for adoption. It is no secret that Chinese babies (as well as Indochinese and later, Russian infants and children after the Soviet Union's disintegration) are prominent in legal cross-border adoptions. Moreover, hundreds of entire Chinese families pay snakeheads and risk arrest to be taken to a foreign land, usually in the West. However, all that would not negate the principle that no nation, not even one with a billion-plus population, would give up its citizens. Worse still would be the proposition that babies are being sold in black-market trafficking. So, this is a matter of acute sensitivity for the adoptee nation. The Chinese government is to be commended for entering into an arrangement with another sovereign state that upholds the dignity of its citizens, and seeks to regularise the process.

Only two non-profit welfare organisations - Fei Yue Community Services and Touch Community Services - would be authorised to handle adoptions in collaboration with a China entity approved by Beijing. If requests for China infants grow on the confidence engendered by government endorsement, MCDS will need to study the need for more approved agencies. There will be little regret at commercial adoption agencies being closed out of the China option, even if these had operated responsibly. Adoptions in most nations which have developed mechanisms for them are usually confined to non-profit organisations anyway, to prevent exploitation.

what about teenage pregnancy? should teenagers be encouraged not to abort?

Or why dont u ask if homosexual couples should be allowed to be foster parents here? ;)

huh? not related?

Both are taboo topics in the Singaporean context, arent they? So are we prepared to do so all for the recent push for population growth? ;)

hrmmm well i think gay couples should definitely be allowed to adopt... providing they are 'suitable'... like responsible whatever... assuming gay couples are recognised in the first place... and uh if the govt is really desperate they should offer incentives and aid for teenage parents...

So you think we have reached that level of desperation eh? :D

no lar... juz that i feel teenage people should be given aid in raising children lor... aborting seems so ... sad? abortin because you dont want the baby is not too sad... but aborting cos you can't afford is really sad...

Originally posted by heirloom

no lar... juz that i feel teenage people should be given aid in raising children lor... aborting seems so ... sad? abortin because you dont want the baby is not too sad... but aborting cos you can't afford is really sad... You sound like you are condoning teenage sex and pregnancy?

Bringing up baby: Men in the spotlight

By Tan Tarn How

SINGAPORE men - it's time to buck up. You'd better start pulling your weight at home or women will continue voting with their wombs and choose career over children. Don't even think that the pro-baby goodies you throw at them are enough.

This was the reality check issued to the Singapore male yesterday by four MPs, one of whom was a man. The first in the House in the two days of debate to blame his own gender, Dr Mohamad Maliki Osman's message echoed that of his female counterparts: Dad has to share equally in bringing up baby or there won't be any baby to take care of.

Why, he lamented, were questions about the baby shortage always directed at women as if it were solely their issue. Said the Sembawang GRC MP: 'Perhaps that is why we have not been able to reverse the trend. Men's minds have not been sufficiently 'liberated'.'

The solution was for men to be comfortable with their masculinity and thus treat their partners as equal, said the father of two young children. The Government too must have family policies that are equal for both sexes, he said. 'Only then will we send the strong message to our womenfolk that they should and will be supported when they bear our children.'

The mixed signals sent to women - that they should pursue a career and yet be left holding the baby, as it were, was also the grouse of Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah GRC) and Miss Irene Ng (Tampines GRC). A mother of three, Dr Khor blamed it on a conservative society, a government which supported a 'patriarchal and male-dominated society' and women's own wish to fulfil themselves as individuals. Forced to choose, women increasingly opt for career over children. Like Dr Maliki, she wanted more shared responsibility between husband and wife.

Also on her wishlist: longer paternity leave, equal medical benefits for women in the civil service, citizenship rights for children of a Singaporean woman and her foreign husband, and the right of women to claim child relief and maid levy tax breaks. 'Please listen to women', was her closing plea.

Amending that to 'Please listen to women as equals', Miss Ng said measures such as maternity leave and baby bonuses might not be enough to stop the slide in the birth rate here. What was needed was to 'move from our patriarchal system to a more gender-equal one'.

She asked for the Government to get out of the family affairs of Singaporeans by not telling them who should be head of the household, and to set an example of giving up to two weeks' paternity leave to civil servants.

Miss Indranee Thurai Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC), one of 21 MPs who spoke yesterday, also doubted that money talked loud enough. If she were married, and considering having children, 'the single most important thing to me would be that I had the husband's support because I would have to know that he would be there if I needed for him to take on part of the role', said the 40-year-old lawyer.

What was needed was nothing less than a social and mindset change, she said. Otherwise, the policies that result are 'only addressing symptoms and not necessarily the cause'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ON DR AMY KHOR'S WISHLIST

• Longer paternity leave

• Equal medical benefits for women in the civil service

• Citizenship rights for children of a Singaporean woman and foreign husband

• Right of women to claim child relief and maid levy tax breaks

ON MISS IRENE NG'S WISHLIST

• A move from a patriarchal system to a more gender-equal one

• That the Government stop telling Singaporeans who the head of the household should be

• Up to two weeks' paternity leave for civil servants

Gee...check this article out!!

It's your 'duty' to procreate

Carrots alone won't work; it's time for the stick, say several MPs, who want pressure put on married couples who don't want babies

By Tee Hun Ching

HAVING babies is a duty. Make that a duty to self, society and country. Alarmed? You should be, if you are married and have no desire to procreate. MPs like Dr Ong Seh Hong (Aljunied GRC) want to pump up the social pressure on such people whom he described as 'irresponsible'.

Yesterday, even as their counterparts continued pushing for carrots such as a five-day work week and cash incentives, Dr Ong and several MPs suggested it was also time to use the stick. Indeed, the MPs argued passionately that procreation was a responsibility that people should fulfil regardless of sweeteners.

Adopting the most hardline stance among them all, Dr Ong emphasised traditional Asian values as he dismissed the common refrain that family planning is a personal decision. Declared the father of three: 'Procreation is not only the duty of everyone, but also the responsibility of every citizen towards his family, parents, society and country.' Those 'irresponsible' people who shun the stork, he said, should realise they would become a liability to the society in future.

To prevent this, he suggested making this group bear the costs of their old age by having them contribute to an account he called the 'Preventive Eldercare Account'. The money in this account would then provide for their needs when they are old. He said he believed that Chinese philosopher Mencius' words on filial piety - 'bu xiao you san, wu hou wei da' - still has relevance today. Translated, it means that 'of the three instances of unfilial behaviour, not having descendants is the worst'.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) also held out a Chinese phrase for those naysayers against children to ponder over - ai qing the jie jing. It means a baby is the product of love. Marriage and having children came naturally to people of his generation without too much cost-benefit analysis, noted the 45-year-old father of two. 'Sure, there were problems and difficulties, but they add colour and richness to life. If you ask parents today, few of them would regret having babies despite all the difficulties,' he said.

He suggested an annual Love Campaign to add spark to the lives of young couples and help them appreciate the joy and fulfilment of having a family. 'It is like driving a car. We have the best engine, the lubricant is new and the tank is full. But when we turn the key, the engine does not come on because there is no spark in the chamber,' he said.

Dr Ong went a step further and proposed an all-out media blitz to promote family values. Such messages, he said, could be transmitted through TV dramas 'highlighting the sorry plight of a childless old couple and the great problems faced by an ageing society'.

Joining in the chorus of MPs who lamented the erosion of values that led to having children being viewed less as a duty than a personal choice was Ms Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol), who is single. She said while children were a status symbol of sorts in the past, the reverse is true today.

The MP, who admitted she faced pressures to get married especially during Chinese New Year from well-meaning relatives, said: 'In the not-so-distant past, we had less to eat and wear, but we had more children to show. Today, we analyse and analyse the cost until we become paralysed by it.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 THINGS TO KNOW

THINK BIG TO WIN

Arrogant, Singaporeans are not. They actually lack self-confidence. Their country's small size makes them think small. Think big and conquer the world, said Dr Wang Kai Yuen. How? For a start, aim for a population of 8 million through immigration.

CHEAP DATES?

Matchmaking comes at a price - even for a Government-sponsored website. Members need a Giro account, pay a $30 fee, and $150 for a consultation. Make it all free, said an MP.

COMPETING VIEWS

Competition is good, bad and ugly. That sums up the different views among MPs as they spoke about competition in once government-controlled sectors such as telecommunications, electricity and transport.

THE MISSING MALES

You don't hear Americans saying 'my wife is pregnant'. Instead they declare: 'We are pregnant'. It means a desire by men to take on a more involved role, MP Maliki Osman learned.

GUIDE TO GOOD SPEECH

What is the secret to good speeches worth listening to or reading about? Keep them succinct, substantial and sincere, says columnist Chua Mui Hoong.

Is it wrong to be a single?

DON'T single out the single woman. That was the plea of some single women MPs yesterday.

This growing group, said Ms Indranee Thurai Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC), are 'a little twitchy' about the signals that the Government is sending out with its strong pro-family stance. 'They do feel a lot of pressure because they get the sense that somehow, it is not right for them to be single,' she said.

Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) also cautioned against going overboard with the pro-family campaign, as it could imply that 'you are a failure if you do not have a spouse or a family'. The singles, she said, also make significant contributions by covering for their married colleagues when they take maternity or sick-child leave.

They also care for their elderly parents when their married siblings tend their own brood. These demands raise the work stress of singles, she added. 'Hours at work will get longer. Chances to socialise and meet a partner will become even slimmer.'

She thus asked for more generous tax rebates to singles who care for their elderly parents and disabled siblings, pointing out the tax relief on the foreign maid levy that working mothers now enjoy.

Said Ms Ng: 'Many do not choose to be single; many do not choose not to have children.' She added that if Singapore became 'so unwelcoming to singles', the danger would be that those who are professionals and mobile 'will just take off to cities which allow them to live as they want to'. 'And then we'll have another problem on our hands - of a brain drain.'

They heard it different

WHAT men say and what women hear are often very different, Ms Indranee Thurai Rajah (Tanjong Pagar GRC) said yesterday. And policy-makers should bear this in mind when trying to get pro-baby messages across.

Take the 1986 government appeal to Singapore women to get married and have babies. The intention may very well have simply been that Singapore had a declining birth rate, and the Government was concerned that the population would drop below critical levels, she said.

But the message that she and other undergraduates at the time heard was this: 'Your education doesn't really count, your purpose in life is to have babies and it's all your fault that we don't have enough children.'

Another crossed message she cited was the Government's encouragement of better qualified women to have babies. 'Now what you mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it would be a shame if you, having had all this education, do not have babies because you can contribute and your children will be part of the nation,' said Ms Indranee, a lawyer who is single.

'What the women have all heard is that you're putting a value judgment on the babies... the babies of the higher educated women are better than the babies of the women who are less educated.'

That might explain the resistance to that particular message, she said. 'You have to remember that there are differences. When you make a policy and when you communicate that policy to a target audience of a different gender, you must take into account that how they think is different... So, the way in which you convey it is very important.'

Yes, do play Cupid... but make it free

By M. Nirmala

THE Government playing Cupid to help singles find partners? Good move. But charging for the matchmaking service? Dr Teo Ho Pin (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) was surprised by the 'commercial approach' taken by the Social Development Unit (SDU), and said yesterday he understood that many singles were put off by it.

Singles who logged on to the SDU website (www.lovebyte.org.sg) have to open a Giro account and pay $30 for membership to use the computer matchmaking service. 'If you want personalised introduction, then you first pay $150 for professional consultation per session and it is stated 'No matches are guaranteed at this point',' he said to laughter from fellow MPs. 'Thereafter, you have to pay another $150 for registration and have the first match. You are entitled up to a maximum of three matches. Subsequent matches will be charged $50 per match.'

If the Government is serious about helping Singaporeans to get married and to have children, then why not provide more grants to the SDU and the Social Development Service so that free matchmaking services can be provided instead? And, to more laughter from MPs, he said that since community development councils were matching residents to jobs that were available - for free - they could perhaps expand their services to include matchmaking.

The matchmaking rates for the SDU, set up in 1984 as an agency to bring graduates together, are higher than some commercial dating websites. The privately-run service SingaporeCupid.com for instance charges $16.95 for a month's subscription, $25.95 for two months and $33.95 for three months.

A civil servant, 22, who signed up for the SDU service is miffed: 'It is expensive and the exercise can backfire. When you charge so much, you raise your expectations of the girl you are going to meet. So far, nothing has happened and I'm still single.'

She's pregnant ...so is he

PREGNANCY should not be borne by women alone. MP Mohamad Maliki Osman (Sembawang GRC) realised this when he was in the United States some years ago and his wife was expecting their first child, Lidia.

An American man they met asked his wife Sadiah how far along she was in her pregnancy. 'Five months,' she answered. The man's response: 'Oh, we are six months pregnant.'

Dr Maliki said it took him and his wife a couple of minutes to figure out what he meant. Then it dawned on him that he too had to be part of his wife's pregnancy. The American had 'owned the pregnancy and I suppose he felt psychologically pregnant', he told the House.

That encounter in 1995 was a turning point for Mr Maliki. He decided to become more involved as a husband: He accompanied his wife to her check-ups and prenatal classes, and even talked often to the then-unborn child.

At the birthing room, he was given a pair of scissors by the doctor to cut his daughter's umbilical cord. He was so taken by the experience that he asked if he could do the same when his son, Adli, was born three years later back in Singapore. 'To me, cutting the cord is a very clear message: That a father plays a very big role in raising a child,' he told The Straits Times -- Rebecca Lee

Other big ideas: From the four corners of the world

SEVERAL MPs went around the world to see what Singapore could do to become more attractive to foreigners and its own people:

Hong Kong: Good service

Do as the Hong Kongers do and also brush up on Mandarin to do more business with China, advised Dr Chong Weng Chiew (Tanjong Pagar GRC).


UAE: Creating a fun place to live

Wealthy Westerners are snapping up the waterfront homes on palm-shaped resort islands built off the coast of Dubai. Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah) wondered whether Singapore had the vision to transform Sentosa into a playground for the rich and famous.

The EU, US and East Asia: Shorter work-week

All European Union countries have a five-day work-week, yet some - like Finland and the Netherlands - are more competitive than Singapore. American workers work fewer hours a week but productivity has not suffered. Japan, China and South Korea also have shorter work-weeks, said Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC).

Ireland: Help for start-ups

Its 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate is far more competitive than Singapore's 20 per cent, said Nominated MP Gan See Khem. What's more, start-ups get grants to help pay for fixed assets, workers and R&D facilities.

Sweden: Support for working mothers

The Nordic country's falling birth rate was reversed when it threw out the traditional 'male breadwinner model' for the 'gender equity model'. The new policies hold men equally responsible for bringing up baby, said Ms Ng.

The Netherlands: Clear tax rules

Look to the Netherlands to decide what makes up foreign-sourced income, which Singapore wants to exempt from tax. Vague rules can delay the flow of funds here and cause the local wealth-management industry to lose out, said Ms Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC).

United States: Family-friendly firms

Flexible work hours reduced resignations at electronics manufacturer HP and flexi-time lowered the absentee rate at Xerox, said Dr Amy Khor (Hong Kah GRC).

Singapore is always trying to imbibe ideas from other countries, but that is not to say others havent been trying to copy us;)

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Singapore is always trying to imbibe ideas from other countries, but that is not to say others havent been trying to copy us;) Wah.....so maybe the west European contries are going to see how we control the brth rates?

Baby-short S'pore gets good news

Children born overseas to Singaporean women can expect the same right to citizenship as those of Singaporean men

By Lydia Lim

IN THE first of many measures to boost the population, babies born to Singaporean women abroad will now have the right to be Singaporeans. The Constitution will be amended, giving them an equal claim to citizenship as babies of Singaporean men abroad.

While this move is significant more in the signal it sends to women than in the numbers it can reel in, more impactful are two proposals the Government has long resisted but will now review.

First is the five-day work week for the Civil Service, which many have said will give a better work-life balance conducive to child-bearing. Second is granting female civil servants benefits equal to those of their male counterparts.

The Working Committee on Population led by Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Hng Kiang will review both carefully, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said yesterday. He was wrapping up a three-day Budget debate bursting with ideas to reverse a plummeting birth rate that hit an all-time low last year of only 36,000 births.

During his speech, he also welcomed MPs' support for the Government's Budget and addressed their concerns on issues ranging from jobs to health-care costs to subsidies for university education. Setting out the overall fiscal policy, he explained why keeping taxes and spending low was the best way to promote entrepreneurship and growth.

He also issued charts and numbers to show that the Government's fiscal prudence has not been at the expense of Singaporeans' well-being. A Finance Ministry study, for example, found that 90 per cent of households gained more in subsidies than they paid in taxes, provided they did not own cars.

Mr Lee also gave this assurance: the Government's safety net would remain in place for those who needed help most.

Turning to the topic that had seized hearts and minds over the past few days, he said he was 'heartened' that the 54 Members of Parliament who spoke in the debate devoted most of their attention to the procreation issue. They understood the seriousness of the problem, he said.

'The Government will do its best to reduce the burden and anxieties families face in having and bringing up children,' he promised. It would not focus on any one measure, but adopt a balanced approach to take into account parents' different needs.

August will be the month to look out for the raft of new pro-baby measures. They will take effect immediately but there will be no backdating, as suggested by MP S. Iswaran. With less than nine months until August, couples did not have to worry they would lose out on incentives if they start trying now, he said.

But he also agreed with most MPs that, ultimately, the solution hinged not on money or benefits but on Singaporeans' attitudes and values. If social attitudes did not support parenthood and couples did not see children as a personal priority, the birthrate would continue to languish, he predicted, even if the most family-friendly practices were enshrined in law.

He cited the example of Italy, where women were entitled to five months of maternity leave but rarely took it up. The reason: some Italian companies required their employees to sign undated resignation letters when they joined, to be put into effect when they became pregnant.

'This is why the challenge before us cannot be solved by Government measures alone. We need the support of employers, unions, and society as a whole to help our fellow Singaporeans have children and raise families.'

Speaking as a father of four, Mr Lee said he agreed with those MPs who said having children was really a matter of the heart and emotions. 'Ultimately it is for the love of children,' he said.

But this personal choice also has a national dimension, he argued, since the qualities of good parents - sacrifice, selflessness, confidence and resilience - are also those that make for a strong society. 'This more than anything else is why we want to help Singaporeans raise families for the future,' he said.

Concluding his speech, DPM Lee also painted the vision of a dynamic, cosmopolitan Singapore - a land of opportunity, where individuals could maximise their potential, businesses thrive and parents raise children in safety. To realise this vision, he called on Singaporeans to 'pull together as one'.

And for some women MPs, it was a message that resonated, coming after the announcement on citizenship rights for babies. MP Lim Hwee Hua said it showed Singaporean women 'have equal rights and responsibilities'.

Originally posted by huaiwei

Wah.....so maybe the west European contries are going to see how we control the brth rates?

Maybe not. In a book I was reading a United Nations Population Fund report states that "No national attempt to raise fertility has ever succeeded against a downward demographic trend."

The best bet would be to increase immigration:cheers:

Originally posted by RafflesCity

Maybe not. In a book I was reading a United Nations Population Fund report states that "No national attempt to raise fertility has ever succeeded against a downward demographic trend."

The best bet would be to increase immigration:cheers: Oh? Then maybe we are prepared to show the world how we can do it differently? ;) There arent that many "nanny states" around in the world are there? :D

if every country were to be able to successfully increase their populations at an economically healthy rate, wouldnt there be a point when the earth can no longer support the population? what then? maybe population decline has some benefits too...

Originally posted by heirloom

if every country were to be able to successfully increase their populations at an economically healthy rate, wouldnt there be a point when the earth can no longer support the population? what then? maybe population decline has some benefits too... The environmentalist groups has been campaigning long and hard that earth cannot sustain the human race. But there has been independent reports which proofed that in fact, resources has been able to keep up with development and expansion. ;)

Don't force PRs to become citizens

S'pore should be a haven for talent and ability - it shouldn't send out wrong signal that PRs are not welcome, says DPM Lee

By Tee Hun Ching

IT IS not practical to impose a deadline to get permanent residents (PRs) to take up citizenship and force them to make a choice. But the Government will ensure that citizens are treated better and will make clearer the distinction between Singaporeans and PRs.

Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong set out these principles yesterday, in reply to two Members of Parliament. Mr Gan Kim Yong (Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC) and Non-Constituency MP Steve Chia had proposed that the Government limit the PR term to five years. After this, they said, a PR should either take up citizenship, or have his PR status revoked but be allowed to stay on to work with an employment pass.

DPM Lee argued against this, as it would send the wrong signal to people who want to come here: 'We should be a haven for people of talent, of ability.' There are many reasons why people become PRs and why Singapore welcomes them, he said.

'Some of them we would like to have take up citizenship. Some of them we are happy to have them say that they are a PR and be a PR. They may be doing business in the region, they may be businessmen in other countries in the region. But they want this because maybe one day they need to come here. So why should we say after five years they must take up citizenship?'

While he agreed that citizens should be treated better than PRs, the Government should do this without 'dis-incentivising' people from becoming PRs, or sending out the signal that PRs are not welcome.

'Far from becoming citizens they may say, 'Okay, thank you very much, I'll just give this up', which is counter-productive,' he said. 'We have PRs who have been PRs all their lives. Mr Dennis Bloodworth is a PR. He has lived here for probably about half a century. Do we want to say, 'You have to take up citizenship'? What for?'

Mr Bloodworth, an author and retired journalist, arrived in Singapore in 1956 as The Observer's Far East correspondent. He was granted permanent residence status in 1970 but retains his British passport.

DPM Lee said Singapore should take an 'inclusive approach' towards the Singapore family, where citizens form the core, surrounded by PRs, employment pass holders and other 'friends of Singapore'. But he gave this assurance: 'There must be gradations. The citizens should be treated better than the PRs and we will make the distinction clearer.'

Not everyone suited to be a parent

WHEN I read about MP Ong Seh Hong advocating using the 'stick' on childless couples ('It's your 'duty' to procreate'; ST, March 10), I didn't know whether to laugh or feel offended.

How presumptuous for an individual (or even a state) to take away the freedom of choice and shove child-bearing down another's throat.

Apart from reinforcing Singapore's already-infamous reputation as a nanny state, an authoritarian country and the like, has Dr Ong considered the possibility that some people may not be suitable as parents, even if they are married?

There are many I know who simply do not like children, nor have the patience for them. Would these make good and nurturing parents? Each married couple should assess their financial, mental and spiritual stability and ability to cope with the heavy responsibility of bearing and raising a child before embarking on such a task.

Would it not be irresponsible to undertake procreation without properly counting the cost? And what would be the end result of haphazard production of children, sans a love for them, all in the name of national service? Abuse is one of the likely results.

Ironically, the same day's paper reported cases of child abuse arising from parents not being mentally prepared to handle the demands of child-rearing, with the child taking the brunt of the parents' frustration ('5 died in 2 years from child abuse').

On Dr Ong's suggestion of making a film about 'the sorry plight of childless old couples', I wonder if he remembers previous reports of the true sorry plight of aged parents thrown out of their house by the very children they brought up, so much so that the law had to step in to compel the children to provide for them.

One should not have a child just so that the child would return the favour and care for the parents in their old age, because we all know that this expectation is both unrealistic and unlikely to be fulfilled in this day and age.

The bringing to life of another human being should be based on an unconditional love for children. Without that love, any person would be hard pressed to make the kind of sacrifices that come with raising a child.

Lest we regress to the Stone Age and regard women merely as baby-making machines, proponents of using the 'stick' to compel childbirth should consider the possibility that such an act might backfire.

Singles who have no inclination to be parents may be scared off marriage lest they be compelled to produce babies.

WONG PONG BENG

Don't repeat Romania's mistake

MEMBER of Parliament Ong Seh Hong suggested that having children is every citizen's 'duty' and childless couples should be penalised.

Such misguided words have been heard before - in Romania, where, from 1966 until its downfall in 1989, the communist regime under Nicolae Ceausescu banned abortions and all forms of family planning in order to produce a larger workforce. Men and women who remained childless after the age of 25 were slapped with punitive taxes. As a result, the state orphanages were saddled with thousands of unwanted children.

Does Dr Ong realise the problems that will plague Singapore if we have a generation of unwanted and unloved children?

His suggestion of a 'Preventive Eldercare Account' that childless people contribute to to pay for the cost of their care in old age is not necessary. There is already the Central Provident Fund Special Account.

All this talk of mandatory child-bearing, love campaigns and subsidised dates is making Singaporeans the laughing stock. Please stop embarrassing us further.

THAM CHUN FAI
Hong Kong

MP may have crossed the line with proposal

I WRITE to express my shock and disapproval of Dr Ong Seh Hong's comments during the procreation debate ('It's your 'duty' to procreate'; ST, March 10).

The notion that the duty to procreate is rooted in 'traditional Asian values' is misconceived. Taken in its proper context, the Chinese philosopher Mencius' words on filial piety - 'bu xiao you san, wu hou wei da' - more accurately refer to the duty to have male descendants to carry on the family name, and not to an abstract duty to have as many children as possible.

If Dr Ong is correct, then China must be the most lacking in traditional Asian values because of its one-child policy.

Dr Ong's contention that childless couples 'would become a liability to the society in the future' is in itself irresponsible as it ignores such couples' contributions to society during their most productive decades.

In its proposed form, the 'Preventive Eldercare Account' discriminates against childless married couples and therefore may be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Singapore Constitution.

In any case, the Preventive Eldercare Account is unnecessary as the current CPF scheme appears to provide adequate social security to those in their sunset years.

Lastly, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, why should the 'sticks' apply only to married couples? Surely, being single and childless must also be just as irresponsible, according to Dr Ong's conception, because singles also do not produce any descendants.

The 'duty' to procreate has never been recognised as a legal duty in any modern society, and the proposal to pass laws to punish those who have failed to live up to this expectation may have crossed the line.

EUGENE PHUA WEH KWANG
New York, USA

Childless but not by choice

I HAVE been married for 12 years and am childless. My wife had three miscarriages.

Should I put her through another ordeal just because of some Chinese philosopher? No, there has been enough pain and sadness.

What about duty and responsibility towards family, parents, society and country? I have served my national service as an NSman and as a volunteer in the town council and citizens' consultative committee, and chaired a residents' committee.

Was it a mixed blessing that, without children, I could look after fellow residents and members as if they were my children?

To the ministers and MPs I say: do not be too quick to judge people like us.

DAVID CHEONG FOOK CHIONG

Kudos to women parliamentarians who set about righting wrongs

RECENT debates in Parliament have shown how persuasive the women parliamentarians can be. Against stereotyping, they were not emotional nor were they reactionary in their arguments.

I thought they succeeded in reminding us - again - of some serious systemic obstacles faced by women in a society still deeply entrenched in patriarchal presuppositions and prejudices.

From Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's response, it is clear that the Government has heard their voices, and has acted to right some glaring wrongs, for example, granting citizenship to children born to a family where one of the parents is not a Singaporean. But more can and should be done to help change mindsets.

It is a good start to think about offering equal medical benefits for men and women in the civil service. The thinking part, I hope, will not take too long. Implementation of a fair policy is long overdue.

It may seem like a token gesture but one clear signal which the Government can send to underscore our intention to rid ourselves of gender prejudice is to change the gender-biased name of the Ministry of Manpower to a more accurate and inclusive name like Ministry of Human Resources.

DANIEL KOH KAH SOON

Yup I agree we should stop the gender prejudice where possible, since women are as capable as men in most areas.

that still sounds a little uneven... maybe you should add that similarly, men are as capable as women in most areas too :)

Though i agree that women should be given equal rights, i find that some of them are taking it too far. Some of my female friends are beginning to see themselves as some sort of elite gender...

well... there needs to be a little balance after eons of male dominance :)

Originally posted by heirloom

well... there needs to be a little balance after eons of male dominance :)

It's so stupid because one moment they're saying that women can do anything men can and the next moment they're ticking us off for not opening doors for them....

hahaha i dont have that problem.. my friends say i'm more whiny than woman

Originally posted by EyeToEye

It's so stupid because one moment they're saying that women can do anything men can and the next moment they're ticking us off for not opening doors for them.... Woooo!!! are we going into a discussion about feminism soon? My pet topic!!! (rubs hands with glee) :D

I just realised that we don't seem to have any Singaporean female forumers... :rofl:

"If men and women were meant to be equals, men would have breasts and women would have penises.." Claudia Highland(a WOMAN)

hrmm that's like saying table = chair... both are equally needed but are not 'equal'... comparing cocks and breasts is really dumb...

Haha. Whatever... it's funny...

Baby blues, pink IC: A delicate balance

By Lydia Lim

FROM THE GALLERY

THE issue of citizenship was raised by MPs again yesterday, the third time it has cropped up in the House this week. Rightly so, since this issue goes to the heart of two key challenges now facing the country.

The first is the falling fertility rate. This opens up the prospect that in future, Singapore may have to depend on foreigners to help prop up its population numbers.

The second is the shortfall of both skills and talent in the labour market, as a result of which the Government has to keep the doors open to foreign workers even as it struggles to help retrenched Singaporeans find new jobs.

Yesterday's discussion on citizenship flowed from the first challenge. Mr Charles Chong wanted to know why the Government had finally decided this week to grant citizenship by descent to babies born overseas to Singaporean mothers.

As MPs and women's organisations had been lobbying for just such a change for years, Mr Chong said he hoped to gain an insight into 'how sacred cows come to be slaughtered'.

In replying, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng did not shed much light on the thinking behind the change. He would only say that more Singaporean women were marrying foreigners and 'we want them and their children to remain connected to Singapore'.

What Mr Chong's question left unsaid is that citizenship is as much about emotions as it is about tangible benefits. Which is why it matters to some Singaporeans whether the change in citizenship rules is due to practical considerations on the Government's part, or principle.

In other words, has the change come about only because the Government now needs urgently to boost the number of Singaporean babies?

Or is it because the Government finally recognises that female citizens are to be valued as much as their male counterparts and are not, as Nominated MP Jennifer Lee put it, 'second class citizens'?

The answer probably lies somewhere in between.

Two MPs who joined in the debate on Thursday also raised the issue of how the state can show citizens they matter and enjoy higher status than permanent residents (PRs). Non-constituency MP Steve Chia argued for increasing the benefits enjoyed by citizens, while reducing those for permanent residents.

'Membership in Singapore must have its privileges,' he declared, no doubt reflecting a popular sentiment among Singaporeans who have had to adjust to the changing makeup of their society. Both Mr Chia and MP Gan Kim Yong asked for a deadline of five years to get PRs to take up citizenship.

PRs 'cannot have the privilege of enjoying the best of both worlds, when our citizens have only one world to live in', was how Mr Chia put it.

Mr Gan delved deeper into the problem. His diagnosis: The current angst over citizenship also reflects Singaporeans' lack of confidence in the country's future. He compared their uncertainty to the brimming optimism of some young Indian nationals he had met recently, a point Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong picked up on in his reply. 'I think our people need some of that confidence too,' he said.

Mr Lee rejected the idea of a five-year deadline for PRs to take up citizenship as impractical, but promised that the distinction between citizens and non-citizens would be made clearer.

The Government would look into areas such as health care, education and housing privileges to strike a better balance. 'We will study how to do this without 'disincentivising' people from becoming PRs, because if you send the signal that you don't want people to be PRs at all, then they will just go away,' Mr Lee said.

The Government will have to tread carefully because Singapore cannot afford to alienate able foreigners who have a choice between settling here and elsewhere.

As a small country with one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, it needs to make foreigners feel welcome. This is a reality that Singaporeans must face up to, even as they stand up for their rights as citizens.

The Government will also have do its part to convince Singaporeans that they are valued. Its challenge will be to address the needs of different groups of citizens.

While more benefits in areas such as housing and education may satisfy the large majority with no plans to leave the country, the better educated and mobile among Singaporeans are likely to hanker for more.

For them, one suspects, citizenship is less about dollars and cents than about feeling that they have a say in where this country is going. Any review of citizenship privileges should also include finding new ways to make them feel they are being heard.

Baby debate: Words that don't bear repeating

Minister Lim Hng Kiang, who is leading the pro-baby government panel, has said he is not comfortable with campaigns. But is one due, and what has been learned from the mistakes of the past? TAN TARN HOW and AZRIN ASMANI report

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I AM 10 million years old!' said Mr Ong Seh Hong when Insight asked his age. 'That's because a friend who read the article called me 'Jurassic',' chuckled the Aljunied GRC Member of Parliament, never mind the minor technicality that that would actually make his birth date 150 to 200 million years ago.

The by-now-infamous report, based on his Budget debate speech in Parliament on the national Baby Blues, was run earlier this week in this paper under the headline: 'It's your 'duty' to procreate'. His hardline stance drew a flood of angry e-mail to The Straits Times from readers. Labels such as 'extremist', 'communist' and 'nutz' make up a fair sample.

Mr Ong - real age 43 - admitted that his mailbox had also registered unusually high activity, with the brickbats rather overwhelming the bouquets. Many of those who are most galled by his view - and calls by other MPs to start a pro-baby campaign - invoked the Great Marriage Debate and the much-derided Graduate Mother Policy of two decades ago when the Government first tried to turn the plummeting birth rate around.

Was Dr Ong's stance not just a throwback but the start of what could rapidly morph into an insensitive campaign urging for more bedroom productivity, they ask. It is timely, therefore, to ask before the procreation committee finalises its recommendations, what lessons have been learnt from past efforts to get people to rethink such personal decisions. Indeed, should there be a new campaign now - and if so, what kind of campaign and would it work?

Mr Lim Hng Kiang, who heads the committee, has declared his aversion to campaigns. And his decision to first gather feedback and pre-sell the proposed policies shows perhaps that the Government has already learned some painful lessons.

DUTY? WHAT DUTY?

BUT most observers and experts Insight spoke to say categorically that a message that is based on a citizen's duty to society to bear children will be stillborn. Such appeals to 'moral responsibility' may go down better when it comes to paying taxes or doing national service because most people are, to some extent, persuaded by the larger-cause argument here - or feel they have no choice.

But the connection between welcoming the stork and good citizenry is tenuous at most. Population specialist from the National University of Singapore (NUS) Paulin Straughan warns: 'In this day and age, you cannot insist on these as duties.' Tanjong Pagar GRC MP Indranee Rajah, who anyway doubts the effectiveness of a campaign, agrees: 'I wouldn't recommend that it be put across as a duty.'

Certainly, invoking the classics - like Dr Ong did when he noted that ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius called not having children the worst act of filial impiety - would be a big turnoff. Associate Professor Lee Guan Kin, who heads the Chinese division in the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), is familiar, from the classes she teaches, with what happens when millennium-old ideas and modern-day youths meet.

'Telling them Confucius said something will not work for this generation. Modernisation, industrialisation and education have changed everything.' Many will say love of parents can be expressed in other ways, she adds.

The man himself, Dr Ong, who reveals that he is now re-reading Confucius' Analects and Mencius, admits that 'child-bearing as moral responsibility' is an impossible sell. 'It will never work. But I have to say what I really feel in Parliament or what's the point of standing up?' Like Dr Lee, he blames the Me Generation: 'That is the larger problem, that people say 'I decide what I want to do.' ' Getting married and having children are highly personal choices in the end, says Ms Indranee, and a lesson learned from the Great Marriage Debate and the Graduate Mother Policy.

Ms Eng Wee Ling, who wrote the much-produced play, Confessions Of Three Unmarried Women, in 1987 in reaction to the marriage debate, notes: 'This is basically the same old thing all over again, dressed up differently. The bottom line is have more babies.'

'My feeling is MYOB - mind your own business,' says the lawyer who is now a stay-at-home mother of two. When she wrote the play, she was single, and the question her play tackled was: 'Is singlehood such a 'sin'?' This was, and is, shorthand for: People don't like the Government telling them what to do.

And if this was the case back then, what more now, observers say. When a campaign flops, the cost may not just be a baby dearth, but possibly the alienation of many - as indicated by the surge of unhappiness following Dr Ong's speech. Thus, Dr Straughan says, care must be taken not to 'marginalise and stigmatise' the single or the childless.

A campaign may also backfire or have unexpected side-effects. The slogan 'Have three, if you can afford it' turns people off, says Dr Lee Chun Hwa, a public communications specialist from NTU. 'We should not stress affordability but the joy, the happiness, the sense of 'wholesomeness' in having children.'

Also, others point out, the unspoken but powerful message of that slogan is that having a baby is not cheap - giving second thoughts even to those who have the money.

CAMPAIGN DILEMMA

SO, TO campaign or not to campaign? Here, a contradiction is apparent among the many who say that these matters are down to 'personal choice', for they often add in the same breath that the Government must act. Surely, private decisions should be left as that rather than crafting policies to sway people's behaviour?

But that is to give up, and for most people, this won't do as the survival of the nation - in the words of many MPs - is at stake. Venture capitalist and co-chair of Romancing Singapore Finian Tan admits as much. Telling people about the good things about family and children 'seems so tacky but we need to push the message somehow', he says.

Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC MP Gan Kim Yong believes a subtle touch is needed: 'It has to be a soft sell.' Like Dr Lee Chun Hwa, he thinks 'the message should be on the joy of children...of family, love'.

Will such a gentler approach work? Critics point to the ongoing but low-key family life campaign, which among other things, seeks to 'imbue Singaporeans with pro-family values and encourage family formation and bonding'.

Began in the late 1980s, the effort has had its share of criticisms, such as those drawn by a 1992 advertisement about the loneliness felt by single children. More tellingly, the fertility rate has continued its seemingly unstoppable slide.

Population expert Peggy Teo, who is with NUS, says campaigns have worked in the past, but adds that 'as Singapore evolves, one wonders if this can continue, especially when it comes to so intimate an issue as babies'.

More pessimistic is Dr Lee, the public communications specialist, who believes it will take a long time to reverse deeply-ingrained values. 'For such a campaign to be really successful, we need at least two generations. Do we have enough time for that?' he asks.

One success he points out is the courtesy campaign, partly because it is done only once a year and is often subtle rather than hard-hitting. But research shows that repeating messages ad nauseam only makes people tune out, he warns.

Yet campaigns have one benefit that is more subliminal, longer-term and perhaps, ultimately, more effective. For Dr Straughan, campaigns have ripple effects. 'When the state promotes pro-family policies, the social status of the family is raised tremendously.'

Then the roles tied to family work are also legitimised. 'For example, when a working mother needs to pick up her child from school now, she does not have to do that with guilt.'

Dr Finian Tan agrees, and adds the target of a campaign must not just be parents-to-be and employers but also parents and 'multiplier influencers'. The latter, which includes country clubs, churches and other social organisations, can provide a welcoming atmosphere for families and for singles to socialise.

The United States may have a high fertility rate because parents there, unlike many here, are more open to teenagers making friends of the opposite sex, he says.

Dr Straughan says there may eventually be 'a mindset change at the workplace, a social structure and social environment' where having babies are the in thing, the good thing. Some see those already of marriageable and child-bearing age as a tougher audience to pitch to and suggest instead that the target group should be children. Mr Gan says: 'We should start this mindset change in schools before they get caught up with the rat race in the society.'

Places of worship are also a good venue to get kids, especially those from single-sex schools, to mix, says Dr Finian Tan. As the choir master of his church, he tries to make sure one sex does not outnumber the other in his group of 30 to 40 teenagers.

But others warn that the campaign cannot be mere propaganda, and that society must really become a wonderful place to be parents. Otherwise, the danger is that children brought up thinking how great it is to have kids may enter adulthood to find a starkly different reality.

The message must be true, they say, noting that the Stop At Two campaign of the 1970s worked so expectedly - and disastrously - well because parents found from their own experience that two - or fewer - were really enough.

Indeed, Dr Ong agrees that if anything is to be done, it must start in the most impressionable years. After all, he owes his values to his Chinese school education in Dunman Secondary, he adds. 'I am not running down English education. For example, it makes people more outspoken, which is good.'

In his school, he recalls, certain ideas were woven into the curriculum. That is why it is 'natural' to him that the nation should come before self. Yes, some of the Confucian tenets such as the superiority of men over women are outdated, he says, noting that two of his three children are girls and if they are more capable then they should work while hubby minds the baby.

But many precepts are still relevant. 'You can call me laokudong,' he says, using the Mandarin expression for old-fashioned. But we should see how some of the older philosophy applies.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One that worked...


TO WORK, the message of a campaign must be true. The Stop At Two campaign of the 1970s worked so well because parents found from their own experience that two - or fewer - were really enough.

...and one that didn't quite

THIS ad from 1987 is part of the family life campaign, which continues even now. The lower-key effort, and other new population incentives of that year, led to a sudden jump to 50,000 babies in the Dragon year of 1988. Since then, the trend has again been downwards.

When public policy and private life clash

THE Graduate Mother Policy of 1984 shows that people do not take well to being judged and told what to do in very private matters, observers and experts say.

In fact, the reaction to the policy - which aimed to get better educated women to have more children by giving their kids preference in primary school admission - sparked such a groundswell of unhappiness that the Government did an unprecedentedly quick turnaround. It withdrew the policy 15 months later.

Sociologist Pauline Straughan from the National University of Singapore (NUS) recalls: 'Graduate women didn't want to be told that they should get married and have more babies.' It was thus a case of state paternalism carried too far, others say.

Dr Lee Chun Wah, an expert in public communications and campaigns, says that, initially after independence, 'people have implicit trust in the former Prime Minister that things will run if we follow his advice, which was crucial at that time'.

Some vestiges of the attitude remained even in 1983, when the Great Marriage Debate first brought the growing number of single female graduates into national focus. The debate seemed to work, with graduate women following the injunction to embrace marriage while more graduate men heeded the call not to marry 'down'. But it lasted for just a few years, with the proportion of graduate female singles among the population dipping before rising again.

Still, both also rankled many with their elitist and eugenics slant. 'No one wants to be told that their genes are not good enough,' Dr Straughan says. The result was it 'created a schism and marginalised the not so well off from the better off', says NUS demographer Peggy Teo.

The bulldozer mode of pushing through policy without consultation and feedback also did not help. Policy makers did not try to appreciate the barriers faced by career-oriented young women, Dr Straughan says.

Research is needed. Mr Michael Rose, managing director of Ogilvy Public Relations Singapore, whose work includes working with the Government on public campaigns, says homework will help find out what messages work - and for whom.

A call to duty may work with those in the 50 to 60 age group, he says. 'If you try and sell that message to people in their mid-20s, that might not work at all.'

Would you like to be born in Singapore? Come on, you can be honest

By Asad Latif

Dear Asad,

I WAS amazed to receive your e-mail. Here I am, a baby not yet born, and there you are, in Singapore, asking for an interview. I dare say that technology is one of Singapore's major draws.

You say that everyone has a view on Singapore's baby shortfall. The carrots being dangled in front of couples are getting bigger, but there is talk of using the stick as well if people do not respond. In this frenzy, people have forgotten us - the babies-to-be.

Do I want to be born in Singapore? That was your question. Here is my answer.

What I find astonishing about your baby debate is that it is not about babies but dollars. How much does it take to bring up a child? What does he cost his mother? How far should she be rewarded for her motherhood? How about men? Could they get some time off - time is money - for being fathers?

I do not know whether to laugh or to cry at those questions. Have these couples ever wondered whether their parents would not have been better off without having them? Are they willing to pay their parents for the bother of raising them, for dreams unfulfilled, for opportunities foregone? What is the going rate?

So why should we, the unborn seeking the sun, be born in a world of cold calculations? Why cannot couples just have us, as their parents had them, and take life from there?

I do understand why your government is desperate. Unlike parents who can choose not to have children, a government cannot choose not to have a country. A country requires people to work for it, fight for it and make babies for it.

Yet, there are problems. Asad, have you noticed how often the word 'contribution' is used in your Singapore? It is such a big word that I can barely spell it correctly.

Society values a person for what he or she contributes, ultimately to the economy. Baby incentives are the smiling face of the same coin whose other face demands sternly that the child contribute to the economy.

I have nothing against contributing, of course. In fact, I shall hardly mind if, some day, I pay more in taxes a year than what someone makes by way of a salary.

However, I cannot guarantee this. I am a brainy child-to-be, and so I know what is a guarantee, but how can I promise it? Can you promise me that Singapore will accept me whether my talents lie in making money or in making music, in excelling at things which make me happy without making others suffer?

I want to be born. Can you promise me that Singapore will cherish me for what I will be - which I do not know now - rather than treasure me for what it wants me to be?

Do not call my questions childish: I am not even a child yet. I know that there is no country where children rule. Everywhere, people welcome the next generation as the future, but by the time that generation comes of age, the future has passed into its past and it is time for another future, another carpet of mile-long hopes laid out for another generation waiting to be born.

I understand all this, but can you understand what I am saying? I am saying that I want to be myself, and so long as you count me in dollars, I am too precious to be born.

Are you upset, Asad? Sorry, but you wanted me to speak the truth. All right, calm down. I have more to say about Singapore.

You have a lot going for you. I can be born in your country without cats and dogs hosting my reception on the hospital floor.

No civil war will kill me before the age of four. No mother will need to sell me off at 12 if I am a girl. No starving father will have to depend on my eight-year-old arms to bring food home by carrying the bricks with which the rich build their homes.

Your schools are not communes, but they are not palaces, either. They are playpens of the nation. Every child gets the same toys - English, maths, science, the mother tongue - with which to build tomorrow's Singapore.

These sharp toys often cut tender skin - God help the Singaporean who does not know how to play with them - but, at least, no Singapore child has to become a foreign worker because his parents were too poor to give him the most expensive of toys: English, the passport to the riches of the globe.

And, most of all, Singapore stops no child from climbing into its lap because of the colour of his skin or the name of his faith. That is why I want to be born there.

I do not know what I shall be if I am born: girl or boy, a tycoon's child or a gangster's brat, the darling of my parents or the debris of a broken home. I have no idea of which race or religion awaits my arrival. I do not know what my chances in life will be. Will I excel in school or elbow my way through the university of life? I do not know.

But I can speak about Singapore honestly because I do not know how the dice will fall for me. I do want the dice to fall for me in Singapore because I want to live before I can struggle to be what I want to be.

For that, I need a set of parents. Could you pass the word around?

Thank you.

Yours Sincerely,
unborn child

Asia's empty nests

Japan dangles cash and family-friendly workplace measures to get couples to have kids

By Kwan Weng Kin

EACH Japanese woman gives birth to only 1.32 children on average during her lifetime. That's hardly enough to keep the population at its present levels.

In a bid to change that, Japan is taking drastic action.

It passed a law last August requiring local governments and companies with more than 300 employees to draw up concrete measures by April next year.

The aim is to make it not only easier for couples to have babies, but also easier to raise them.

On its part, the state will provide monthly cash allowances. Families earning less than 7.8 million yen annually will receive 5,000 yen (S$77) for the first and second child and 10,000 yen for the third child onwards until their children complete the third year of primary school.

The local authorities will offer additional incentives. Tokyo's Kita Ward, for instance, will pay for medical treatment - currently only for pre-schoolers - for children up to 15 years old.

Meanwhile, companies have been told to change their mindsets concerning maternity, and paternity, leave.

They have been asked to allow new fathers to take at least five days' paternity leave.

Female workers are not only to receive extended maternity leave if they need it, but also to work shorter hours if necessary.

Companies have also been asked to let women take child-care leave without having to worry about whether their jobs will still be there when they return.

The difficulty of holding a job and raising children forces one-third of Japanese women workers to quit their jobs after the birth of their first child, statistics show.

For those trying to hold onto their jobs, a baby can make life difficult. Mrs K. Asada, in her mid-30s, heads a small travel agency and is the mother of a year-old child.

'I had vowed not to have any children. But after I accidentally became pregnant, I decided to have the baby after a lot of fretting,' she said.

'It proved to be an obstacle to my job. My relationship with my husband worsened. I was greatly disappointed that he saw child-rearing as a woman's responsibility.' Like most women, Mrs Asada had difficulty looking for child-care facilities. Most close at 6pm when many women are still at work; the Japanese rarely leave their offices earlier than that.

'My only choice was to put the child in an unauthorised creche that is not all that trustworthy,' she said. 'I definitely do not want a second baby.'

Mrs Moeko Tawara, 74, understands what working women are going through. The author, activist and ex-journalist managed to raise two children at a time when working mothers received no help at all from the government.

'Many women today who want to have both jobs and children are left very exhausted because government assistance is still almost zero,' she said.

Mrs Tawara was part of a group that campaigned for a better workplace environment for women who wanted babies.

'There is now a law allowing women and men to take up to one year's maternity or paternity leave. But in practice, women are reluctant to take such leave, and men cannot because they run the risk of not having jobs when they return.'

In order for its population to maintain its present levels, Japan needs a fertility rate of 2.08. But since dropping below 2.0 in 1975, the rate has continued to slide.

Despite this, the government is careful not to appear to be pushing women into having babies.

Indeed, the Law For Measures To Support The Development Of The Next Generation enacted last August recognises in its opening paragraph that 'marriage and births are the sole decision of the individual'.

Three babies the ideal few achieve

A govt survey finds that lack of money, time and energy prevents couples from achieving their dream family size

By Tee Hun Ching

COUPLES here do want babies and believe having three is 'ideal' - but just don't ask them to become that model family. The lack of money, time and energy prevents them from achieving their dream family size, most of them said in a national survey of 3,000 married couples. If work is thrown into the equation, a significant number of women also believe the ideal is to have both a full-time career and one child or more. About four in 10 feel this way.

The study, along with a second one covering 7,000 singles, is meant to help planners craft procreation policies. The studies were commissioned by the Ministry of Community Development and Sports and the Ministry of Finance. They polled more than 10,000 single and married Singapore residents between last July and this February.

Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Community Development and Sports Minister, cited some of the findings in Parliament yesterday, as evidence that Singaporeans are not averse to babies, but just need help balancing work and family ambitions. Singapore's fertility rate reached an all-time low of 1.26 babies last year, well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

The procreation committee, which plans to deliver its recommendations by August, will be looking at the two studies. One key challenge must be finding ways to close the yawning gap between people's work-family ideals and their actual decisions. For instance, about four out of five married people believe having three children is 'just nice'.

But their intended and actual family size is two children on average. Dr Yaacob said: 'This means families can and should be helped to achieve the ideal family size they desire.'

On why they have fewer children than their ideal, almost four in 10 said the cost deters them. Three in 10 said they lacked the energy and time - they tended to be well-educated people, although there are no exact figures on educational background. While 41 per cent of the women surveyed say their ideal is both a full-time career and children, another 21 per cent said they would prefer to work part-time if they have children.

Focus group discussions also revealed that women welcome the idea of flexi-work arrangements, but worry about job security, salary, benefits and being passed over for promotion. They also hesitate to quit their jobs to have children.

Family life educator Charis Patrick was not surprised that most women want both children and a full-time career. 'In the past, women held jobs. Now they have careers. It is no longer just about an additional source of income, but personal achievement,' she said.

Agreeing, sociologist Paulin Straughan of the National University of Singapore said housework and childcare were seen as 'invisible work' with no economic value. 'So how can you blame the women for wanting a share of the goodies of paid work?' she said.

But Mr Edwin Choy, co-founder of the Centre For Fathering, focused on one positive finding - that only about 11 per cent of those polled prefer to have a job and no children. 'Career has not completely eclipsed the needs of and for family,' he said.

In his speech yesterday, Dr Yaacob also highlighted findings from recent study trips by two civil service teams to Norway, Sweden, Italy, Holland and France. A key lesson, he said, is that countries that help people strike a good work-life balance have achieved higher birth rates without reducing female labour participation.

The European countries also have different ways of structuring part-time and flexi-work arrangements. But for many of them, generous pro-family measures are based on high taxes. While Singapore did not want to adopt an expensive family support system, he said more could be done.

'If we do not help our women, they will have to choose between a mummy or career track. This is a lose-lose situation, as Singapore will then end up with fewer mothers and babies, as well as a smaller workforce.'

PRs welcome 'if they don't act to harm S'pore interests'

By Soh Wen Lin

PERMANENT residents (PRs) need not worry about the security of their stay here unless they act in a manner that undermines Singapore's national interests, the Home Affairs Ministry said yesterday.

The ministry made this statement in a response to an editorial titled 'Not so permanent residency' in the Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) last Thursday.

The Hong Kong-based newspaper referred to the incident in which Singapore Airlines pilot Ryan Goh was stripped of his Singapore PR status almost two weeks ago. He had been a PR for 23 years.

The AWSJ said 'the action has reinforced a perception in some quarters that Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's word still amounts to law in Singapore'.

In a recent meeting between Singapore Government officials and pilots union leaders, SM Lee singled Mr Goh out as being a 'prime mover' in manoeuvring behind the scenes to get the pilots to sack their union leaders.

The AWSJ article also said that when the revocation of Capt Goh's PR was made, 'no reason was given' beyond that the Home Affairs Minister had deemed him an 'undesirable immigrant'.

It ended by arguing that the incident could in the long run threaten the country's attractiveness as a place to live.

In its reply to the editorial which it sent to the paper and released to the media here, the Home Affairs Ministry said there is no need for PRs here to have such worries.

'Foreigners are welcome to work and live in Singapore,' it stressed.

It also laid out why it revoked Mr Goh's PR status.

It noted that Mr Goh drafted a petition to oust the leaders of the pilots union which he also served in, but did not himself sign it 'to hide his hand'.

However, before ousting the union leaders, said the ministry, Mr Goh prepared an exit strategy for himself and his family. He secured PR status in Australia, bought a house and moved his car and family there and sold his flat in Singapore. He also allegedly told a Singapore official he was moving because 'the grass had stopped growing in Singapore'.

'He concealed all this from his union colleagues while he posed as a brave unionist fighting for his fellow pilots,' the ministry said.

'Taking cognisance of this and other information, the Minister for Home Affairs has considered Ryan Goh an undesirable immigrant,' it added.

Mr Goh has appealed the decision, which the ministry said is being considered. If his appeal fails, it said Mr Goh has another seven days to appeal to the minister 'whose decision will be final'.

Added the ministry: 'It is the Minister for Home Affairs who has the authority under the Immigration Act to decide on the revocation of PR status, not Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, although the minister could keep the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues informed.'

High-powered panel to tackle baby dearth

TOP guns in the civil service have been roped in to come up with measures to boost Singapore's birth rate and ensure that the population can replace itself.

Led by Permanent Secretary Eddie Teo (Prime Minister's Office), the 15-member Working Committee on Population will study proposals intended to reverse Singapore's low fertility and encourage foreigners to settle here.

Permanent Secretary Lim Soo Hoon (Community Development and Sports) and Permanent Secretary (Manpower) Yong Ying-I head the five women in the committee of 15, who are also drawn from the Finance, Education and Home Affairs ministries.

It was formed because the issues involve many government agencies, a PMO statement said on Wednesday.

The committee will report to a steering group headed by Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Second Minister for Finance who has been charged with overseeing a holistic review of population-boosting measures.

The steering group's other members are Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, the Minister for Community Development and Sports; Acting Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen; Deputy Speaker and Marine Parade GRC MP Lim Hwee Hua; and Hong Kah GRC MP Amy Khor.

Mr Lim's appointment was announced by Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong when he presented the Budget on Feb 27.

Also on the working committee are Lt-Gen Lim Chuan Poh, Second Permanent Secretary (Education); DPM Lee's Principal Private Secretary Ong Ye Kung and the Chief Statistician, Dr Paul Cheung. The other members are deputy secretaries and directors in the ministries.

They are expected to produce their recommendations before National Day.

Adopting other solutions

As the nation gets caught up in the baby debate, I wonder why no one is thinking seriously about alternative ways to boost the population

By Ong Soh Chin

SINGAPORE, it is time to think outside the box. Or the crib, as the case may be here. We need babies. Our married couples are not producing any, or enough. And our singles are not getting married, choosing their careers over home and hearth. So what do we do? More importantly, heeding the call of the nation in its time of need, I ask myself: What can I do?

So far, in the current debate, it would seem I can do nothing. Except perhaps to stand hopelessly aside, wringing my manicured hands at my vacant womb. For I am a single career woman in my late 30s, and current wisdom dictates that I am fast becoming redundant.

But I'm not giving up without a fight. Despite what the popular ideal may be, I am not discounting the idea of kids. In fact, I am not discounting anything. Why should I sell myself short? Even though biology is not in my favour, I am not about to jump into a marriage purely for the sake of having kids. That would be irresponsible, not only to me and the man I marry, but also to the kids that may come from this ill-conceived union. I want to have kids when and if I'm ready, biological clock be damned.

And the fact that there are millions of orphans in the world is the only proof I need that I can still be a parent someday - not to my own child, but to somebody else's. By 2010, UNAIDS (the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids) estimates there will be a grand total of 107 million orphans in the world. Of that number, 25 million of them will be orphans of Aids.

It is a mind-boggling figure that gives a twisted spin to the current baby debate which, literally and metaphorically, has been rather navel-gazing in nature. Here we are, bemoaning our lack of babies when there are potentially some 80 million healthy kids in the world who deserve a shot at life and loving parents.

I can't think of a really sound reason why some of these kids can't call Singapore home. Sure, when it comes to adoption, there are murky underlying questions of the child's eventual loyalty to his adoptive country. But if not enough married procreation-age Singaporeans are stepping up to bat, and if we are truly a country that's all for foreign talent, shouldn't adoption be a viable alternative to be considered seriously?

Why keep throwing money at married couples who have, time and again, shown that they don't want to have more children? Why keep penalising single people who will have to pay baby taxes but will get nothing back in return unless they, too, get pregnant? In fact, why not involve single people, rather than marginalising them in this kiddy circus?

CURRENTLY, Singaporeans adopt an average of 700 children a year, more than 60 per cent of whom are foreign-born. But what is not widely known - at least it hasn't been highlighted in the last few baby-mad weeks - is that singles in Singapore are also allowed to adopt.

In fact, about 5 per cent of the total number of adoptions - or 35 cases - each year involves singles. They have to meet certain criteria of course. A person who adopts - married or single - has to be a resident of Singapore, at least 25 years of age and at least 21 years older than the child. Single males are not allowed to adopt girls.

Miss Ang Bee Lian, director of Rehabilitation and Protection at MCDS, says: 'While the law allows a single man to adopt a male child, few in fact adopt as they do face more difficulties than a single woman who is adopting a child.' In addition, each applicant will be investigated thoroughly by the Ministry of Community Development And Sports, as well as the authorities in the relevant foreign country if it is an overseas adoption.

While these stringent checks are definitely necessary - to protect not only the child, but also the prospective parents - is there any way the number of such adoptions could be increased? Could single people, especially those who cannot have kids, be actively encouraged to adopt children the same way married people are?
Currently, there are no incentives or tax breaks offered to singles who want to adopt.

For too long now, having babies has been the sole domain of married couples. We have been so fixated on the traditional nuclear family that we haven't realised it is fast going the way of the dodo. The Singapore Department of Statistics website shows that the number of marriages declined by almost 10 per cent in 2002, compared to 1997; even as the number of divorces went up by 19 per cent in the same period. Isn't it time to acknowledge that alternatives to the married-with-children scenario must quickly be found?

When I was researching this column, a married male friend with kids told me that, in the interests of responsible journalism, I should also address the fact that raising kids is not an easy task. 'I don't see how a single person would be able to handle the job,' he said candidly. While I appreciate his reservations, I also recognise that adoptive parents are screened rigorously - including deep investigations into the kind of support system they can provide the child.

But nobody screens married couples to see if they're mentally, physically and financially fit to have biological kids. Chances are a lot of them would fail to make the grade. But no one would ever deny them the right to be parents, no matter what their situation is.

WHILE I don't have firm statistics to back me up, I suspect that singles who adopt tend to be affluent professionals, which is helpful when it comes to hiring qualified help or putting the kids in quality child care. But should poorer singles be discouraged from adopting children? I would rather trust a child with a poor but sincere single parent than a married couple who would consider having a kid just to enjoy a tax rebate or financial compensation.

In the past, it was common for unmarried majies and samsui women to adopt children. They had no child care facilities, no rebates and not much money. With few adoption centres available, offering to take on an orphan, or a child from a big family struggling to make ends meet, was not seen as a stigma. It was seen as a good deed.

Today, however, things are different. As Singapore becomes more advanced, Singaporeans are becoming more intransigent, isolated and spoilt. We complain about stifling rules and regulations while at the same time whining that the Government is not giving us enough handouts to do what comes naturally to the birds and the bees.

So here's another radical thought: Instead of throwing money fruitlessly at people to encourage them to have children, how about committing some resources to opening closed minds instead? After all, part of being a creative society is the ability to think beyond the proscribed parameters.

ONE of my single male friends has an adopted three-year old son.
He says the hardest thing about raising his child is dealing with people's stereotyped perceptions on a day-to-day basis. Miss Ang from MCDS confirms this difficulty: 'By nature, a woman is more nurturing towards a young child and there is greater societal acceptance of the relationship than that of a single man.'

My friend tells me about a female florist at the hawker centre near his house who once pulled his son aside. 'She asked him nosily who I was and why he doesn't have a mother. I was very angry because it was none of her business and also because it upset my son. If she had any questions, she could have addressed them to me, not him.'

Sometimes, I think, it's not the nature of the parent that might harm a child. It's the nature of an unforgiving and unaccommodating society. But are we bold enough to address - nay, see - this problem before it's too late?

Me citizen you PR

A clearer distinction between permanent residents and citizens is in the works. Will it have the intended result of boosting citizenship numbers, or will it backfire and drive PRs away? LYDIA LIM and SUE-ANN CHIA report



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




INDIAN national Latha Balakrishnan is not sentimental about her permanent resident (PR) status. If benefits for PRs are reduced, the IT consultant will pack up and leave with her six-year-old son.

'Just give more to citizens, that's fair enough. But don't take away from PRs,' she says.

On the flip side, while she appreciates the need to do more to differentiate between PRs and citizens, any extra benefits the Government heaps on Singapore citizens won't tempt her to give up her Indian passport.

Her loyalties are firmly with her homeland. The divorcee plans to retire there as the cost of living is lower there than here.

Like her, many PRs Insight spoke to are not persuaded by the Government's plan to have a clearer distinction between PRs and citizens. The move is meant to encourage more of them to become citizens.

If the Government decides to wield the stick - by reducing the subsidies that PRs now enjoy in areas such as health and education, for example - many PRs say they will leave.

If it dangles carrots, few say they will bite.

A typical view comes from Malaysian Julian Kwan, 41, a business development manager and a PR here. 'Why should I want to be bound to Singapore? I still want to have an avenue to go off if I need to,' he says.

WHY RISK A BACKLASH?

FOR years, the Government has maintained that the gap between citizen and PR privileges is wide enough. Now, in an attempt to find new ways to top up the citizen population, it is taking steps to recalibrate that balance.

The minister charged with crafting population policies, Mr Lim Hng Kiang, warned last month that if the total fertility rate did not turn around, and the number of new citizens stayed constant, Singapore's population would decline soon after 2020.

That is why - despite the risk of a backlash - the Government plans to tweak its policies in areas such as education, housing and health to make citizenship more attractive.

It seems to be one of the few policy levers left to an administration facing an uphill battle cajoling Singaporeans into having more children.

Mr Lim's committee declined to be interviewed, as it is still 'in the process of deliberation'.

Although there are about 290,000 PRs here, only 7,000 become citizens each year.

Permanent residents are a well-educated lot.

One in three PRs has a university degree, compared to only one in 10 citizens, according to the 2000 Census.

So wooing PRs for citizenship is the rational thing to do.

The question is how this will play out in practice given the fine line between differentiation and discrimination.

Many question if this is the right approach, to begin with.

Some also wonder which PRs the Government is trying to entice.

'Let's admit it,' says one Briton who is a Singapore PR, 'most people place citizenships in a hierarchy.

'Whatever you do, it's unlikely to change the fact that people value a British or American passport more than a Singapore passport,' says the media professional who asked not to be named.

Former PR Kenny Hui, who became a Singapore citizen 10 years ago, points out that PRs hang on to their citizenships for reasons that are often beyond the Government's control.

The president of the Kowloon Club says it was relatively easy for Hong Kongers to surrender their British passports because they were allowed to keep their Hong Kong permanent residency.

But not so for Malaysians. Trading in their passports for Singapore citizenship means they are treated as foreigners the moment they cross the Causeway.

Many Malaysians, who account for the majority of PRs here, also say they want the option to retire up north. Their Singapore-dollar savings will buy them a higher standard of living there.

WHAT CITIZENS WANT


AMONG Singaporeans, the feeling is that the move towards a clearer distinction between citizens and PRs has been a long time coming.

Apart from the right to vote, one key difference right now is that citizens can buy subsidised flats directly from the Housing Board. PRs can only go into the resale market.

Full-time national serviceman E. Lee argues it's about time the Government did something about the current system, which obliges male Singaporeans to pay their dues by serving NS while foreigners 'enjoy a free ride at our expense'.

Another Singaporean, who wanted to be known only as Mr H.A. Tan, says that with so many foreigners here, he sometimes feels that Singapore has become 'transitland'.

These undercurrents of resentment explain why many PRs contacted were reluctant to speak candidly about their intentions to remain PRs.

Among some Malaysians, the recent Ryan Goh case has also had a chilling effect. The Singapore Airlines pilot, a Malaysian, was stripped of his PR status for being an 'instigator' in a pilots' union leadership ouster.

THE BEST APPROACH


IF SOME Singaporeans had their way, they would want to see jobs in the civil service and government-linked companies reserved for citizens. They also want a range of financial incentives, ranging from lower school fees for their children to more medical benefits and tax rebates. But there are also those who are against the doling out of such perks.

Company director Steven Koh, 35, worries that the extra benefits will lead to higher government spending and a less competitive Singapore. 'If the Government keeps giving away benefits, it can't take them back when times are bad,' he says.

Some, like Mr Sia Yong, president of the Singa-Sino Friendship Association, think the best approach is to draw as many PRs here as possible and leave them to decide if they want to become citizens. Others say a policy of incentivising people to become citizens creates an impression that Singapore is trying to 'buy PRs over'. 'Then where will their loyalties lie?' wonders architect Alvin Liew, 45.

Given the Government's current emphasis on cost-cutting, it seems unlikely that the new citizenship privileges, to be announced in August, will take the form of generous financial perks.

In fact, even as it announced plans to make the distinction between PRs and citizens clearer, the Government also laid the ground for the withdrawal of some benefits that Singaporeans have enjoyed for years.

These include asking undergraduates to pay more for university education and introduction of means testing for medical care. The argument is that scarce financial resources ought to be directed at helping those who need it most.

Taken together, these developments make for a complicated picture facing Mr Lim Hng Kiang and his population committee.

From the tangle of constraints and concerns, they will need to craft a citizenship policy that will satisfy Singaporeans, entice some PRs to become citizens and yet not signal to those who want to stay PRs that they are unwelcome.

Citizens and PRs alike are waiting to see if and how it can be done.

WHAT IT'S ABOUT

THE Government plans to make the distinction between permanent residents (PRs) and citizens clearer but is still working out how best to do so. Last month, two Members of Parliament called for PRs to be given no more than five years to take up citizenship.

While rejecting the idea, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said he agreed that 'citizens should be treated better than the PRs and we will make the distinction clearer'. The plan is to tweak education, housing and health policies to make citizenship more attractive, said Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Second Finance Minister.

The hope is that such a move will encourage more PRs to take up citizenship and contribute to the procreation drive.

Also, it will address a longstanding complaint among Singaporeans that PRs enjoy most of the benefits of citizenship but shoulder none of the responsibilities.

i dont understand Latha Balakrishnan arguments.. i mean as she is an NRI..she can have two citizenship.

i dont understand Latha Balakrishnan arguments.. i mean as she is an NRI..she can have two citizenship.
What is an NRI?

NRI= Non-Residential Indian :)

NRI= Non-Residential Indian :)
You mean she is not a full Indian national?

You mean she is not a full Indian national?

she is...well..i think so:)

indian expats can have two passports
:)

she is...well..i think so:)

indian expats can have two passports
:)
Ok..the thing is a Singaporean citizen cannot have other citizenship! :D

Ok..the thing is a Singaporean citizen cannot have other citizenship! :D

..well i would take the Singaporian citizenship...money,food,,skyline matters!:) ;) :D

..well i would take the Singaporian citizenship...money,food,,skyline matters!:) ;) :D
Food...maybe....skyline...not very good, but lausible....but money.....erm......I would think its more like spending money then keeping it here? :D

Food...maybe....skyline...not very good, but lausible....but money.....erm......I would think its more like spending money then keeping it here? :D

well...you know how it is..it is more fun to spend than to save money :)

well...you know how it is..it is more fun to spend than to save money :)
Haha.....I jus wished I have the base money to spend with in the first place! :D

Baby boom at family friendly company

By Salma Khalik

WHEN it comes to family-friendly workplaces, Ascendas is probably among the top.

The company, which runs the Science Parks, has 111 women on its payroll and, for the past three years, hardly a month has passed without a new baby to celebrate.

Four have arrived so far this year, and seven more are expected before Christmas. There were 10 last year, 11 in 2002 and 10 in 2001.

That makes it 35 with seven more on the way. Six of the baies are from the wives of male employees.

The prolific mums say the company's family-friendly policies make it easy to have both children and a career.

Ms Genevieve Tan, from its corporate and marketing communications department, had a son five months ago and now works four days a week instead of five, with a proportionate cut in pay.

She is still breastfeeding her son Joshua, and uses the Mum's lounge to express her milk while at work. She stores it in the refrigerator to take home for the next day's feed.

Madam Chong Siak Ching, the company's president and chief executive, said: 'I'm a mother myself, so I appreciate the pressure...that working mothers have to go through.'

Mothers can opt to work half a day every day, or as little as three days a week. Some take up to a year of no-pay leave after giving birth.

It does require some juggling and it costs the company more, but Madam Chong says it is worth it. The staff are more productive as they have fewer worries, and are more committed to the company.

Starting this month, she said, parents can take medical leave if they have a sick child who is under 12. They just need to produce a medical certificate from a doctor.

She said: 'Talent is so tight in Singapore. If mothers stay home, we lose out.'

More foreign-born kids to get citizenship
By Lydia Lim

PARLIAMENT yesterday approved changes to the Constitution that will enlarge the pool of overseas-born children who enjoy the right to Singapore citizenship by descent.

Children born abroad to Singaporean mothers will now enjoy the same right to citizenship by descent as those with Singaporean fathers.

Children born overseas to Singapore citizens by descent will also qualify for citizenship. However, their parents must have lived in Singapore for a total of five years or more previously, or for at least two out of the five years before their birth.

The changes are a key plank in the Government's plan to boost the citizen population in the face of a baby shortage as the number of newborns plummeted to an all-time low of 36,000 last year.

Yesterday, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the moves are to update the citizenship laws, which have remained largely unchanged since the 1960s, as more citizens now work, study, live and start families abroad.

Indeed, between 2000 and 2002, the number of foreigners granted permanent residence under the sponsorship of their Singaporean spouse shot up from 4,000 to almost 5,800. The number of foreign-born children granted citizenship went up from 1,900 to 2,700 - by 41 per cent - between 1991 and last year.

The change in allowing citizenship by descent from female Singaporeans reflects the fact that many women are married and overseas 'but have parents here and they keep their links back here'.

Recognising that more people now need to travel for work, the residence requirements for permanent residents applying for citizenship have also been relaxed.

A PR needs to be resident here for at least two years before he can qualify to be a citizen. The maximum period he can be away during that time used to be six months. It is now 12 months.

During yesterday's debate, three women MPs cheered the fact that citizenship laws will now be gender neutral.

Miss Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) delivered an impassioned speech on equality for all citizens.

'Often we are told we live in a patriarchal society... but I just want to caution against using such cultural arguments to justify any unequal treatment of our citizens. In the long run, people will not accept that citizenship can be fully practised other than among equals.'

Replying, Mr Lee maintained that Singapore was still a patrilineal society. He cited as evidence the many women who ask their MPs for help after their husbands desert them and stop supporting the family. Few men do the same, he noted.

'But it is shifting gradually, so we are also shifting slightly less gradually,' he said.

Parliament passed five other amendments to the Constitution. One was a change to allow the transfer of reserves from the Government to organisations listed in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. The schedule is a list of statutory boards and government-linked companies whose reserves cannot be drawn down without the approval of the Elected President.

MAY 3, 2004
Singaporeans in despair over cut-throat economic competition must look at the many things Singapore has going for it - and which other countries don't have, says PRIME MINISTER GOH CHOK TONG

(CHINA and India rising) is like Singapore being in the ring, doing battle with two heavyweight sumo wrestlers at the same time. Have you seen the advertisement of a scrawny man facing up to a big-sized sumo wrestler?

Can you imagine small-built Singapore taking on two sumo wrestlers - China and India - at the same time? We will be squashed like a hamburger.

But will we? Why should we stand still and be squashed? Why must we wrestle with them? Why can't we use taiji instead?

Those who watch gongfu movies may have heard of the Chinese martial arts stroke, or zhao: 'si liang bo qian jin' or 'use four taels to deflect a thousand pounds'. Using this stroke, the taiji master borrows the strength of the opponent to counter him.

Of course, we do not regard China and India as our opponents or think that we can defeat them.

What I mean is that we should see China and India as opportunities and ride on their growth. We should borrow their strength and grow with them.

That is why we encourage Singaporeans to go regional. That is why we visit China and India frequently to understand them, to work with them and to forge economic partnerships.

EXTRA POWER FROM THE GIANTS

CHINA and India can provide the additional power for our economy.

We are already benefiting, not just from our investments in these two countries, but also from their investments in Singapore. For instance, Singapore is becoming a launching pad for Chinese companies wanting to expand in the region and globally.

Sinochem International, the listed arm of Sinochem Group, a very large Chinese conglomerate, has recently established its overseas headquarters (OHQ) in Singapore.

This OHQ will manage all of Sinochem International's worldwide subsidiaries and businesses and also perform strategic planning and R&D.

India has rapidly emerged as the global hub for business process outsourcing. Recently, the Scandent Group, a big Indian company providing IT services and business process management, picked Singapore as the strategic base for its global operations.

Why? Because Singapore is physically well-connected with the rest of the world through telecoms, air and sea links. Singapore is a base for over 6,000 multinational corporations (MNCs). We also have 'connectivity' like free trade agreements with our major trading partners, close bilateral relations and a strong pool of human capital with understanding of international business practices.

So you see, we have many strengths. And one of our strengths is our ingenuity in overcoming problems.

But some Singaporeans do not see this. Because of the difficulties over the past few years, they felt a sense of hopelessness. Some even migrated.

Those who have migrated because they think the grass in Singapore is drying up will, one day, look back with regret. We will make our grass grow. No water for the grass? No problem. We have Newater.

Aha! But you may say, ours is cow grass which nobody wants. Golfers know that we have replaced cow grass with xoysia and Bermuda grass! We can solve our problems and upgrade.

Those who are thinking of migrating should think again.

Do not think that the grass is always greener elsewhere. They may be greener now. But will they always stay green? All economies go through economic cycles.

They may offer better prospects than Singapore now. But will it be always this way?

Besides, globalisation is here to stay. Wherever you are, you now have to compete because the world is one global marketplace. You cannot escape from competition whether it comes from China, India, or other more competitive economies.

In the case of Singapore, each time our economy becomes less competitive because of rising costs, we have the capacity to reduce our costs.

Not many countries can do that without social upheaval. We have cut our Central Provident Fund (CPF) twice before: during the 1986 recession and in 1999 in response to the Asian financial crisis.

And last year, we made major changes to our CPF scheme to maintain our cost competitiveness. In addition, we restructured our tax regime.

Our income tax rates, both personal and corporate, are among the lowest in the world. The Singapore dollar remains strong. It did not depreciate.

In fact, it has strengthened against the regional currencies. Our exports continue to grow and the current trade balance remains in surplus. And over the last six months, we have created 30,500 jobs, enough to replace all the jobs lost in the first half of last year.

The developed countries do not have the same capacity to cut costs. Nor can they respond so swiftly. Why? They do not have the same degree of harmonious tripartite relations that we have.

This is another core strength of ours.

During bad times, Singaporeans did not quarrel and fight over a shrinking economic pie. Instead, we bunched together like a rugby scrum and fought as a team. And together we grew the pie.

The trust between workers, employers and Government did not come by chance. It was carefully built up over more than four decades. We have a reputation for peaceful and cooperative industrial relations.

Last year, several thousand workers were laid off. The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) handled over 5,000 of those retrenchments from 107 companies. NTUC helped workers get a fair compensation package. They also helped workers retrain and find new jobs. Thanks to NTUC and enlightened employers, there was no industrial strife.

When PSA Corp had to retrench 500 workers, the new chairman, Mr Stephen Lee, felt the pain. It was the first time PSA had to let go of so many staff. But it had no choice. It had to cut costs, reduce wages and increase productivity or see more shipping lines leave Singapore. PSA learnt its lesson from the loss of Maersk and Evergreen. It was not going to make the same mistake.

During the retrenchment exercise, the atmosphere was tense and emotional.

The industrial relations officer (IRO) who handled this, Ms Jessie Yeo, even cried. She was emotionally stressed. She wrote a report to NTUC secretary general Lim Boon Heng. Boon Heng was moved by it. He sent it to me to read to appreciate the contribution of union leaders and IROs.

PSA has regained its competitiveness because it took decisive action.

Despite the difficult conditions last year, we managed to attract $7.5 billion of fixed asset investment commitment in the manufacturing sector and nearly $2 billion of total business spending commitment in the service sector.

However, these figures are history. What of the future?


ON TOP RUNGS OF LADDER

I AM optimistic because of our strengths as a people.

If you compare the competitiveness of countries, it is not just about size or even the abundance of natural resources. If land mass and population size were the overriding success factors, all the big countries would also be the richest. But this is not so.

If natural resources were more important than people, then Saudi Arabia with its oil would be the richest country. It is not.

Countries with high per capita incomes are those with high quality human resources and efficient organisation, like the United States and Japan for the bigger countries, and Denmark, Finland and Switzerland for the smaller countries.

We have high quality human resources.

Now, one in five of every cohort of Singaporeans is admitted to our universities. Six out of 10 Singaporeans make it to polytechnic or university.

And we are customising our education system to maximise the potential and creativity of every Singaporean.

Also, we are topping up our population with able people from China, India and elsewhere. If we have able people and we are more united and better organised than others, we can remain on the top rungs of the competitive ladder.

The standard of living we enjoy will then continue to go up.

For those who do not make it to polytechnic or university, do not fear.

We run a competitive market economy where the more able will earn more. But we also run a compassionate social system where the wealth generated by the more able is shared with the rest of the population.

Housing, education and health-care services will always remain within your reach. And from time to time, when we have budget surpluses, we will share them with you, with the lower-income Singaporeans getting more than the better-off Singaporeans.

And we will continue to pump in millions to upgrade your skills, to train and retrain you.


This is an excerpt from Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's May Day Rally speech last Saturday.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Hahaa......there are some truth even in govt propaganda! :D

Hahaa......there are some truth even in govt propaganda! :D

Got "truth" mair....sound like a political strategy to me....haha...:D

I doubt Singaporeans will be migrating to India or China yet...

i dont know how people can migrate... from young i kept telling my mother to migrate to switzerland or something so i dont have to do ns (i didnt know at that time switzerland had ns too) but now living in perth i realise i'd miss home too much

i dont know how people can migrate... from young i kept telling my mother to migrate to switzerland or something so i dont have to do ns (i didnt know at that time switzerland had ns too) but now living in perth i realise i'd miss home too much
I tot I told you to declare your sexual orientation with regards to NS? :D

Goodbye S'pore, hello US

The stakes are high and I'm a little afraid. But this is as good a time as any to spread my wings, venture overseas and meet new challenges

By Ginnie Teo

I'M LEAVING.

It's time to go.

After 10 years in this newspaper, I've decided to put down my pen and move on. It's time to step out of my comfort zone.

I've had a wild 10 years as a reporter in Singapore's top newspaper, filled with ups and downs.

The first story I wrote was headlined: 'Road closure on Kim Keat Lane.'

I had been given a press statement from the road authorities about a stretch in Kim Keat being closed for road works and was told by my editor to write it up.

I laboured over the story for hours and produced what I felt was a masterpiece.

The story was so tiny I almost could not find it the next day in the papers. But when I did, I savoured every word. All 24 of them.

I cut out the article and lovingly pasted it in an A4-sized jotter book - my byline file, as it's called.

Over the years, the file got thicker and the stories became more exciting.

I became a crime and court reporter, to my parents' dismay. But I was thrilled. It had a glamorous ring to it - Ginnie Teo, Crime Reporter.

In 1994, I volunteered to cover the Abbas Saad trial, in which the former national footballer was accused of a match-fixing conspiracy.

For months while the trial at the subordinate courts went on, I joined a regular group of reporters from other newspapers and TV stations to take note of every word Abbas said, every action, every cough.

It was the biggest trial in Singapore then and each time I overheard a stranger discussing it in a kopitiam, I swelled up with pride.

'They're quoting my story,' I would boast to my friends. It was a heady feeling.

In 1997, I was part of a team sent to Palembang in Indonesia to cover the SilkAir crash.

We spent weeks in small boats speeding up and down the Musi River, watching Indonesian and Singaporean divers search the murky dark waters for clues.

I remember when one of them emerged with a dog's body and we all thought it was the gruesome torso of a child.

We staked out hotels, waiting for relatives to spare us a few minutes to talk to us. We cried and mourned together with the victims' families as they laid their loved ones to rest.

The overseas assignment dragged on and I ended up spending Christmas and New Year with my colleagues in a dingy hotel called Hotel Lembang, which served the best fried chicken skin, if you could ignore the rats running around.

We were away from home and our loved ones. But never mind, we were covering Singapore's biggest news story.

Everyone back home needed to know. I had to tell them. This was a job worth doing, I felt.

IT'S been 10 years and even though I still feel the same passion for journalism, it's time for me to sign off. I've handed in my resignation letter and I'm serving notice.

My parents think I'm mad and that I'm suffering from the female version of a mid-life crisis - only that it has hit me early.

In fact, there's a book written about this called Midlife Crisis At 30: How The Stakes Have Changed For A New Generation And What To Do About It. It is by American journalists Lia Macko and Kerry Rubin and discusses how people are suffering from early-onset midlife crises.

Why leave now when you've had only good things to say about your current editors and colleagues, my family wonders.

Well-meaning friends feel it's suicidal that I'm leaving at this point in time, when jobs are so scarce and most people are hanging on to theirs.

Some feel it's an absolute waste for me to leave just as I am building up a name for myself as a travel beat reporter in the Life! section.

I agree with them all.

Which explains why on some nights I wake up in cold sweat in the middle of a dream where I have no money, no car and no house, only a fish tank.

Yet, I'm doing it. I want to venture overseas.

My family is living in the United States now, and I've decided that this is as good a time as any to join them and, at the same time, see what it is like working in another country.

I want to cut my teeth in a new field, maybe public relations, or write a travel book, or even run a hostel.

I want to open a shop selling stationery products or vintage clothes.

These used to be just dreams, but now, I may be able to live them.

I'm not unwilling to humble myself so that I can take on these new experiences.

Get down on my knees to clean the toilet of the hostel I intend to run? I'll do it.

Travel the world the hard way and write that travel book? No problem.

I know I'll have to make sacrifices, like cutting back on shopping and selling my car (any offers for a 1992 24V BMW 5 series?)

But I want to taste life, to go into a field completely alien to me and see if I'll do well.

I feel confident that my years of being a journalist will stand me in good stead. I will face each challenge with the same intensity I gave to each news assignment.

Of course - touch wood - if things don't work out, I may eventually return to journalism.

But not before I give my dreams my best shot, and savour every new challenge.

MAY 4, 2004

SGH is cheapest in 3 of 4 birth categories; Thomson Medical Centre is cheapest private hospital for delivery in B1 wards
By Lee Hui Chieh

IF YOU are having a baby and are contemplating whether to have Junior in a private or public hospital, new figures released by the Ministry of Health (MOH) might help.

The figures show that if you want to have your baby delivered normally in an A-class single-bed or B1-class four-bed ward, the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) is the cheapest.

SGH is also the cheapest if your baby has to be delivered by caesarean section and you opt for an A-class ward.

Among private hospitals, Thomson Medical Centre charges the least for both normal and caesarean-section deliveries in its four-bed wards.

The charges, released yesterday by MOH, are part of an ongoing exercise to post prices for 70 of the most common health procedures on its website. The figures are posted to increase transparency, improve efficiency and empower consumers.

They show that mothers who had their babies normally at SGH pay $1,982 for staying in a single-bed room and $1,454 for a four-bed room.

At the other end of the scale: $4,197 for a single-bed room at Mount Elizabeth Hospital, and $2,532 for a four-bed room at National University Hospital (NUH).

But do not think that public hospitals are always cheaper than private ones when it comes to having a child.

At the National University Hospital, for example, new mums pay $2,532 for a normal delivery in a B1-class ward.

At the KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH), the cost is $1,941. This compares to between $1,801 and $1,846 at the East Shore and Mount Alvernia hospitals and Thomson Medical Centre.

Only Raffles Hospital is more expensive than NUH and KKH in this regard: It charges $2,136 for a normal delivery and a stay in a four-bed room.

NUH also costs more than several private hospitals if you choose an A-class ward. It costs $3,552 there, compared to between $2,756 and $3,331 at East Shore, Mount Alvernia, Raffles and Thomson.

Only Mount Elizabeth and Gleneagles hospitals are more expensive, charging $4,197 and $3,859 respectively.

For delivery by caesarean section, NUH is also the costliest among public hospitals and three private hospitals for both A- and B1-class wards.

An NUH spokesman said its A-class charges could be high because they include optional private services, such as having a paediatrician on stand-by during the delivery, or getting daily updates on the baby's progress.

She explained that up to 40 per cent of its A-class patients opt to have a paediatrician on standby, which costs $100, while more than 85 per cent choose to have a paediatrician update them every day, at a cost of $200.

The spokesman added that NUH's priority as a public hospital was to provide cost-effective care, especially for subsidised patients, and pointed out that its B2- and C-class normal and caesarean delivery services were the cheapest.

A spokesman for Parkway Group Healthcare, which runs the two most expensive hospitals for delivery services - Mount Elizabeth and Gleneagles - explained that value-added and personalised service and minimal waiting time pushed its charges up.

Gynaecologist Lee Keen Whye, who practises at Gleneagles, said: 'Having a baby is not one of those things that you do every other month, so couples can afford to splurge on it.

'Most of our patients feel that the doctor and medical care are the most important factors, so as long as they are good, they don't mind paying more.'


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright @ 2004 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Oh no....why is KK so expensive now? That is where I was born! :D

Oh no....why is KK so expensive now? That is where I was born! :D

Could be due to the all new facilities??? :D

Aiya who is not born in KK in our era...., unless those real rich ones lah....:D

Could be due to the all new facilities??? :D

Aiya who is not born in KK in our era...., unless those real rich ones lah....:D
Maybe..they need somebody to pay for all their fountains and lifts.....

Maybe..they need somebody to pay for all their fountains and lifts.....

Exactly....Anyway I think they also incorporate the cost of the new building....:D

how can hospital not have lifts?

how can hospital not have lifts?
Have u ever seen their lifts?

no? what's it like?

no? what's it like?
It can rival posh hotels...if I were to put it mildly. And they seem all over the place. I suppose ppl with big tummies cant walk for long distances...

of course not :) people with no tummy also shouldnt be made to walk too far for elevators

of course not :) people with no tummy also shouldnt be made to walk too far for elevators
Oh no.....I tink u shd pay KK for the cost of upgrading and leave the rest of us alone! We just want to get our baby out and get out! :D

Oh no.....I tink u shd pay KK for the cost of upgrading and leave the rest of us alone! We just want to get our baby out and get out! :D

Got a cheaper way.....DON'T GO!!!!:D

haha i'll probably never need to use kk...

Got a cheaper way.....DON'T GO!!!!:D
But why......KK is such a special institution for Singaporeans! Its so likely that the irritating baby u kick beside u ends up being your classmate 7 years later! :D

But why......KK is such a special institution for Singaporeans! Its so likely that the irritating baby u kick beside u ends up being your classmate 7 years later! :D

It doesn't matter now that people are richer and have more choices....I guess people are practical nowadays....they don't care about the baby kicking beside them will be their classmate or not.....so long as it's cheaper... :wallbash:

It doesn't matter now that people are richer and have more choices....I guess people are practical nowadays....they don't care about the baby kicking beside them will be their classmate or not.....so long as it's cheaper... :wallbash:
But the article says that KK is more expensive now....

But the article says that KK is more expensive now....

Thats why people now give birth in private hospitals..... :wallbash:

Thats why people now give birth in private hospitals..... :wallbash:
Oh dear....whatever happened to public institutions? What happened to their original role of serving the entire populance, rich or poor?

Oh dear....whatever happened to public institutions? What happened to their original role of serving the entire populance, rich or poor?

I guess that could be due to the "shakeups" you've just mentioned??:D

I guess that could be due to the "shakeups" you've just mentioned??:D
Dunno lah..it seems more to be a result of all the "privatisations" and the artificial introduction of competition?

Dunno lah..it seems more to be a result of all the "privatisations" and the artificial introduction of competition?

Coming to this point...I was thinking could it be due to a doctor's high flying pay???