Comments, opinions and an occasional ramble
Carrots are better than sticks
I was reading Molly’s comment on how single mothers are left out of the baby bonus. I do not understand why the government is choosing not to give even a little benefit to single mothers.
We have a problem of low fertility rate. Single mothers are contributing towards the reduction of this problem. Shouldn’t they be given some incentive for their part in increasing the fertility rate? By giving the baby bonus only to married couples, it seems to imply the government is not just interested in increasing the fertility rate. Rather it wants to increase the fertility rate among married couples.
It seems to me that there is an assumption that a single parent family is inherently “inferior”, and therefore, the government does not want to promote this. So, if a single mother wants the baby bonus, she has to go get herself a man to form a family. However, married couples do not necessarily stay married for their entire lives. Divorce rates are increasing. So what do we do to couples who enjoy the baby bonus and then divorce a few years down the road? Take back the money?
Frankly speaking, I think it is only fair that single mothers are given some benefits instead of being left out completely in the cold. It is only right that the government recognise their contributions to the low fertility rate. While I think promoting a complete traditional family unit (father, mother and children) is a good thing, that doesn’t mean we ‘punish’ single parents for not fufilling the criterion of the traditional family unit by leaving them out of the baby bonus benefits.
The individual circumstance of all single parent families are different. We should not be taking a blanket view and assume that single parents are “bad” and that the children will grow up dysfunctional. Perhaps the children that grow up in a traditional family unit might be generally less dysfunctional. So, what should we do? Logically speaking, we should be encouraging single parents to start a family, right? We should be giving incentives (e.g. if they get married after XX years, they still would qualify for the bonus) to start a traditional family unit.
I think that carrots are eventually better than sticks. Besides, the Singapore pledge says:
To build a democratic society based on justice and equality
I am of the opinion that there isn’t justice, and certainly not equality if we leave single parents out of the baby bonus.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Aaron Ng on 12/03/2007 at 12:35 pm, and is filed under Perspective. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 5 years ago
Aaron wrote:
Aaron — what is the evidence for and against single mothers as providers of upbringing for children? Is it an assumption? It’s hard to say without any evidence in your article for either position.
Also, for every single mother, there is a father of the child.
Should the government be taxing everybody else, so that some father, somewhere, can have an easier time of avoiding his paternal obligations?
about 5 years ago
Heh, they are going to take the line that Singapore is an Asian society with all the mysterious asian values and thus they do not want to encourage single mothers (as if giving them money would encourage single mothers). Perhaps they do not see any economic benefits and thus do not feel the need to do anything for these single mothers. Its like the casino, the purpose of the casino is purely for the economy.
about 5 years ago
Really, we might be different in colour, and come from different culture, but are we that different? If we peer deep enough? I don’t think so. If we are so different, why do we look overseas for indication on how to proceed for this and that. Of course we need to change things for the local context since there are so much archaic laws out there and we are already modern; but my view is that the Singapore Mother shows us as a society that is not concerned about its children – not compatible with our other laws on the same issue that express this desire to protect our children, and is unfortunate. Maybe I should write a post liddat.
about 5 years ago
I am sleepy and my comments have lots of awful mistakes. I was trying to say that this is inconsistent with the general attitude we already have to protect children, no matter what circumstances they are born in. And single mothers with more money can use the money for the child.
about 5 years ago
I think that keeping single mothers off benefits saves money. And it’s “acceptable” because the conservative majority (and a lot of old ppl) won’t disagree with this view.
I think it’s hypocritical and I completely disapprove, like Aaron, though.
I think tt it should be the social stigma, not the monetary benefits, that ought to be removed. If we want to develop as a more progressive and humane society, not one stuck in some dark age tt no one refuses to recognise.
about 5 years ago
Haiyo, we must protect young children. *SOB SOB* Young babies no pampers, no milk power. *SOB SOB* *Tugs at conservative heart* Not so easy to get married nowadays (esp. with Kid in Tow since people are bias). *SOB SOB* *HUGGIE WUGGIES YOUNG BABIES?*
about 5 years ago
*pat pat* Poor thing.
about 5 years ago
Mr Ko,
I said that it seems like there’s an assumption by the government that single parenthood is undesirable, else the government would logically have extended the same time of benefits to single mothers. I never stated categorically as a fact that single parenthood is bad. It’s an interpretation from what the government seems to be thinking from the implementation of policy.
And, I don’t see the link between paternal obligation, tax and baby bonus. The baby bonus money is ostensibly meant for having more babies, and that has NOTHING to do with parental obligation.
about 5 years ago
There are alot of inconsistencies between policies and shifts in societal norms and expectations. Perhaps we are in a transition phase towards real-first world standards?
about 5 years ago
Aaron,
Perhaps you misunderstand… it comes down to a few key questions:
1. Do you feel the father of a child should bear any responsibility towards the child? i.e. In the single mother situation, do you feel the father has any duty of care or upkeep to the child?
2. If there is responsibility, does giving equal benefits to married mothers and single mothers reduce the father’s responsibilities to the child born to him and the single mum?
3. Who should pick up the tab for single mums? The father, or other Singaporeans?
Of course, if you feel there is no link between a father’s obligation, the failure to fulfil it, the net effect on the social services, and the tax that funds those social services…
Anyway I also never said that you said that single parenthood is bad. But I am curious about how one can conclude it is equal to dual parenthood — given that there is no evidence cited in your article. Sorry if I blur, and missed the evidence you quoted.
about 5 years ago
I agree with you in that the bonus should be for the baby, regardless of parentage. As for the government, I am beginning to think that in some cases, they are not assuming, but trying to impress certain values onto the population.
I have a hard time trying to think through my own perceptions sometimes. Is it my own? Or is it one that has been “planted” as I experience life?
about 5 years ago
But Mr Ko, what if the father is irresponsible and doesnt bother about the child or the mother? Then does not the question about the father playing a part become irrelevant?
about 5 years ago
Hmm. I think one of the bases behind the discrimination is the idea that while the government wants to encourage more people to have children, they also believe that not all babies are equal.
To form an informed opinion on this subject, I think we need to have more information. Like:
1. Will extending the Baby Bonus to single mothers increase the incidence of single-parenthood?
2. Socio-economic factors being the same, are children raised in single-parent families more likely to turn out ‘bad’ (more prone to crime, lower education/employablility)?
3. Again, all things being equal, do children born into two-parent families turn out ‘better’ than those born into single-parent families, regardless of whether their parents stay together subsequently?
4. Is the single-parenthood ‘problem’ in Singapore big enough (or expected to grow big enough) for us to want to make exceptions in our policies to ‘fix’ it?
Are there any statistics or studies to indicate that the answer to the questions above might be ‘Yes’, and do we think these studies will apply to Singapore?
Now if the answers to the above questions are all ‘Yes’ (as the current government seems to think), then the next question is:
Should the government intervene by implementing policies or making exceptions in policies that specifically discriminate against single-mothers?
While some of us may feel it is unfair to discriminate against mothers (and their children) based on their marital status, I tend to agree with Kitana who makes the observation that there are also many who feel that it is acceptable to do so.
Now if it the expressed belief and wish of these people that single-mothers should not receive the Baby Bonus (for moral or social reasons), and if they do indeed form the majority in a democracy, should not the government implement policies accordingly?
Personally I have met many single-mothers in the course of my work; while I can’t tell you whether extending the Baby Bonus to them would have made them more likely to want to become single-mothers, many of them could sure do with the help.
about 5 years ago
Not extending the Baby Bonus and benefit to the mothers is about social exclusion. We should work towards an inclusion society.
about 5 years ago
inclusive society, I mean.
about 5 years ago
I think what the government fear is that it may encourage more ppl of becoming “single mother”. Like in Australia regardless of whether whether you are a single mother the babies still get the bonus. Ended up a lot ppl giving birth for the sake of the money. For in Australia is slightly different is that they give out cash. I think that is what Singapore government fear about it. So Maybe the government can help them in some other way. I think sometimes those female MPs should think about it also. For what i know a few of them are not even married and don’t even have children. How they know how hard is to raise a child.
about 5 years ago
Those single mothers in Australia are not getting a “bonus”, they are on “welfare”. Two different things. These babies will grow up will grow up with all the “obligations” a Singaporean has to do after all.
Getting married is not the ultimate solution either. There are men who are either abusive, unfaithful, alcoholic, and etc. The kids are better off without them. (Same applies if the mother is the one with these kinf od problems.)
about 5 years ago
The aim of the baby bonus is indeed to encourage more Singaporeans to have kids so in theory the government should not draw a distinction between single mums and married women. But in policy making, there’s also the signalling effect to consider. What kind of signal is the government sending if it extended the baby bonus to single mums? Would that be construed as saying to the masses that it’s ok to be a single mum? Given that Singapore is still a conservative society, there’s really not much political mileage in that move. I’m not saying I support the government’s position but I do think it’s a calculated one reflecting the views of a majority of Singaporeans today. That may change in the future and blogs like this play an important role in reshaping views towards that end.
about 5 years ago
Yun!
You caught my drift!
We should really be calling the bonus “family bonus”, not “baby bonus”.
about 5 years ago
I agree with Kitana that the policy appears to be a sop to the moral conservatives. In fact, this is hardly the only example whereby policy is distorted because conservatives (and usually the religious ones are the more vocal of the lot). The result is therefore a policy that is neither here nor there, both in terms of maxmising its potential effectiveness and in terms of justice and equity… points that others have raised above.
France is one example that the government and its mouthpiece media tend to ignore. It has a very low marriage rate . In 2004, 4.3 marriages per 1000 people per year (compared to 7.8 in the US). 48.3% of children are born out of wedlock.
Conservatives might deplore the widespread
“immorality” of French society.
However, are children growing up maladjusted, unloved and socially deliquent in France? I hardly think so.
And there’s more…. France has a very good birthrate (very good for a developed economy). It’s Total Fertility rate (TFR) was 2.01 in 2006, an increase from 2000. That’s to say, the average woman has 2.01 children in her lifetime. 2.1 is considered the necessary TFR for a population to replace itself. Thus. France is nearly there.
In contrast, Singapore’s TFR is reported in the same table to be 1.06 in 2006. That’s why we’re in such a demographic crisis and needing so much immigration.
In the long term, if one had to choose, would Singapore be better off like France or like the way we currently are? Would we prefer productive “immorality” or unproductive morality?
See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/20/AR2006112001272.html : More Longtime Couples in France Prefer L’Amour Without Marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
about 5 years ago
Hmmm.. very good question. I have no answer. I think that we can straddle both fertility and “morality” problem if our society can redefine the meaning of what it means to be successful in life. Instead of the 5Cs, there should be a 6th one, that is, children.
about 5 years ago
Just_Passin
Actually I think I is the same as what Singapore is doing. The different is that in Australia, you are given a sum of money everytime you give birth to a child. In Singapore we are also being given money when we give birth now. The problem is that Australia government give it in a form of cash that the parents can use it with no restriction. But in Singapore government have some control over it. Please read the following link to know more about the baby bonus in Singapore
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Babybonus-boom-simplifies-significant-shifts/2005/04/09/1112997222217.html
I want to emphasis is that I don’t think there might be a wrong signal given as people will be very hard to abuse the use of money unlike what is happening in Australia. As the money is still with the government and can only be used it for education.
about 5 years ago
Just to clarify the legal position –
under Singapore law, fathers have a legal obligation to provide financial support for their children (while they are minors).
This is irrespective of whether the father is married to the mother.
In fact the relevant provisions in the law are the same provisions which require a divorced father to provide financial support for the kids, post-divorce.
about 5 years ago
“The new parenthood measures have been designed to support a wide range of family circumstances and practices. It would be impossible for all families to benefit to the same extent, unless the new measures represent the lowest common denominator of family arrangements. Nonetheless, most Singaporean families will benefit in one form or another. â€
From MCYS
http://fcd.ecitizen.gov.sg/CourtshipNMarriage/MarriageNParenthoodSchemes/SpeechNPressReleases/Press+Release+On+Strong+Support+For+Baby+Package.htm#incentives
See the words “lowest denominator.” Clearly a moral judgment. zzz.
about 5 months ago
Every weekend i used to visit this web page, because i want enjoyment, since this this web page conations actually nice funny material too.
about 1 month ago
Howdy every person. I was just browsing the internet for entertaining and came on your website. Terrific submit. Many thanks lots for sharing your go through! It will be excellent to know that some people nonetheless set in an concentration into managing their sites. I will you should definitely verify back from time totime.
about 1 month ago
Purely to follow up on the update of this subject matter on your website and would really want to let you know just how much I appreciated the time you took to generate this helpful post. In the post, you spoke regarding how to seriously handle this challenge with all convenience. It would be my personal pleasure to accumulate some more strategies from your site and come as much as offer some others what I discovered from you. Thank you for your usual fantastic effort.
about 2 weeks ago
I think this website holds very great pent articles articles.