Baby bonus

From 1.29 to 2.1 is just a matter of swapping and removing numbers. Yet 2.1 seems a Herculean task to reach. However Herculean this task might be, the government is desperately trying to boost the total fertility rate, using money to lure Cupid and the storks to Singapore.

At the recent National Day Rally, a series of implementations were aimed at easing the financial burden of Singaporean couples amidst global inflation, by increasing the baby bonus, tax benefits for children and infant-care subsidies. Besides money, mothers have better legal protection, and will receive maternity benefits if fired in the last 6 months of pregnancy without sufficient cause or retrenched within the last 3 months. The government has also considered older mothers, by helping to ease the cost of fertility treatment. This all bodes well for the financially conscious Singaporean planning to give birth here. But has money been trivialized in the process of childbearing?

One oft quoted reason for Singaporean women giving birth late is the opportunity to advance in their careers. As women become more educated, they too want to have a successful career, which inevitably takes time to build. By the time they start to settle down, many have missed the fertility boat.

Furthermore, having a child means a loss of money on two fronts. Mothers lose some opportunity to advance their careers, missing out on potential income; and have to pay for the baby expenses. While the increased financial perks seem to lighten the load on mothers, the one-off incentive lacks foresight. Compared to the expenses that will chalk up in the next fifteen to twenty years, a measly $4,000 for one child and $6,000 for the second child seems a measly sum.

Perhaps, it is the oversight of the government that mindsets of Singaporeans have been ignored. Women have become more career-oriented, and childbirth is secondary compared to career advancement. Men generally still want to have children, but the prospect of finding a suitable partner in Singapore is daunting. Instead of playing the doomsayers about Singapore’s future should the TFR remain constant, the government should hinge on the emotional side of Singaporeans.

Instead of forcing cash down their throats, mothers should be informed that fertility drops drastically after 35 and the risk of birth defects increases sharply. This will allow them to plan their lives with 35 in mind, to create a framework to have children before then. On the other side, men should lower their expectations of Ms. Right and ditch the notion of the submissive Asian woman. The Social Development Unit should step in to educate men about their social graces and tips about dating, to increase their chances of finding a partner, and subsequently, childbirth.

While the government can spend more money on baby bonuses, the onus is ultimately on individuals to change their mindset, to make sacrifices and take the first step into parenthood. As quoted from a tongue-in-cheek poster aimed at encouraging couples to have children, “Children make grown-ups grow up.”

Indeed, there might be some truth in that statement.

Democracy Discussion

“Democracy creates stability in a society.”

For purposes of discussion, the definition of democracy is a system of governance or a set of processes which includes equality, freedom of speech and the right to vote. Stability refers to a prolonged period of prosperity or no disruption socially or economically.

Personally, I vehemently disagree that democracy creates stability in a society. Democracy is essentially “the rule of the people, by the people and for the people” according to Abraham Lincoln. However, the fundamental principles of democracy assume that Man is inherently good and can make good decisions himself. This is too idealistic to be transposed into our complex situation today.

An example would be Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s. Despite being a dictator and a fascist, Hitler was elected into power through democratic means. He contested the Weimar Republic under the Nazi party and succeeded in getting the popular vote. After being in power, he consolidated his power through the Reichstag Fire and the Night of the Long Knives. His being in power subsequently led to the rise of Nazi Germany, and later contributing a major part in World War II as Axis Powers. To say that democracy creates stability is to conveniently ignore that Hitler’s rise to power was a product of “good and informed decisions” by the public. Clearly, World War II saw the loss of millions of lives, and many more millions displaced as a result of bloody conflict, a grotesque statistic as a testament to the instability democracy had brought about internationally.

Furthermore, the road to democracy can be very volatile for some countries. Under Gorbachev's rule of the USSR in the 1980s, political openness was advocated, known as glasnost. The Communist Party lost its tight stranglehold on the media, and the cult of personality that Stalin tried so hard to maintain was being questioned by the people. Furthermore, there were elections to vote people into regional assemblies of the republics of the Soviet Union - a clear sign of democratic processes. As a result, the people's view towards the government changed radically, and calls for independence grew louder and louder, till the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. After communism was overthrown, Russia's GDP declined drastically, and inflation shot up; there was an economic crisis. As such, democracy did nothing to help stabilise the nation, conversely, it helped to exacerbate the situation.

On the other hand, proponents of the above motion wax lyrical about the faultless American system, how she has successfully become the symbol of liberty, a place for all free men. What travesty this proclamation is. Racism is still prevalent today in America, with each race clearly conscious of its own identity, and an unwillingness to mix into a homogeneous American society. Homosexuals and transgender individuals are subjected to discrimination in the workplace and in society. And who could forget about the economic meltdown last October and the furore over the sub-prime saga, brought about by the best democracy in the world?

The reason why democracy is perceived to be the panacea of modern governance is a lack of comparison. One can only look to North Korea as a bona fide example of non-democracy. Juxtaposed with America’s high human development index rating, literacy rates and GDP, the DPRK comes woefully short. Democracy has been internationally accepted, so much so that no country with a shred of diplomatic intelligence would declare themselves otherwise.

In reality, democracy is far from the ideal governance any country should have. However, its benefits are relatively greater than other forms of governance like communism and socialism. Till a better system of governance is found, the façade that democracy is the panacea will remain.

Huge homosexual hooha

Recently, it seems that the societal melting pot of Singapore has been bubbling more violently than usual. Besides the usual four constituents of the melting pot, the Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians, homosexuals are struggling to gain entry and acceptance into this delicate equilibrium. Debates have been dominating the online media, the local print media, and even the Parliament.

On the “Repeal 377A” side, a website was created for citizens to petition for the repeal of section 377A of the Penal Code, alleging that the Singapore does not recognize gays as part of the mainstream society. They claim that they want to repeal 377A for symbolic reasons, as a sign of the state’s acceptance of such a community and lifestyle. Also, they are not campaigning for any other new laws to be enacted, like gay marriages, unions, or adoptions, thus not “destroying the family unit”.

On the other side however, most conservatives claim that being homosexual is deviant, and homosexual acts are immoral. Moreover, they cited that men and men were not meant to be together, and it was against nature’s modus operandi. Many also fear that repealing 377A would provide a platform for pro-homosexual communities to push for further rights, and this was a catalyst for disaster.

Most importantly, the government has chosen to join the status quo camp. As Singapore is still largely conservative, and in order to keep the family unit intact, the state has to retain 377A. However, PM Lee cautioned that this should never turn into a numbers game. Naturally, conservatives would form the larger proportion as compared to homosexuals and Singapore would still have to consider homosexuals and how policies would affect them.

Personally, I feel that Singapore is not doing enough for the homosexual community. On one hand, Singapore is trying to promote a vibrant night scene, legalized gambling and a more “open” society generally, but by choosing a very safe stance on not supporting any side in the gay debate, Singapore is sending mixed signals both to the local and international community.

On the international arena, de-criminalizing homosexual acts is seen as a clear indication of an open and accommodating society. In ex-Communist countries, like Russia, Moldova and China, homosexuality has been decriminalized, and an increasing number of people have accepted homosexuals into the mainstream society. Other countries like Finland and Norway, which have always been the benchmark for liberalism, have in place laws to protect gays from being discriminated, ensuring fair chances of finding a job or gaining a military position.

Singapore might have dodged the bullet this time, by not directly addressing the problem of homosexuality in Singapore, but as time progresses, and people being more liberal, the shouts for decriminalization will get louder. Then, Singapore would have much more on her hands to solve. The upper echelons of Singapore's government have long bemoaned about the worrying trend of brain drain, but if they continue with such policies, Singapore might really have no talent left for the next generation.

(500 words)