Policies that are anti family

Low fertility rate and lesser babies seem to be the problem of this little country. And we have many positive govt policies to encourage more babies with cash even being thrown in to help the mothers to be. Why is it not working? Let me venture to make a few educated guesses. Babies mean family and family support groups plus a social and economic system to support their growing up to be healthy and well balanced individuals. They need good homes and space to grow up too, without having to worry about the finances and high cost of living, education and medical expenses. What are the policies that are anti babies and anti family. 1. Housing. You need affordable, I mean really affordable and not a life time of debt to be serviced by two incomes, and reasonably spacious living spaces for the children to grow. Ideally a 3 tier family with the grand parents or other siblings lending a hand when needed to look after the babies. The alternative is for maids, but with someone at home to supervise, thus proper living space for maids. Are shoe box flats good enough to bring up children? Sure, the midgets will tell you. You don’t need more than a store room size room to live in. Ok, the ants and bees live in smaller niches, so don’t complain. And Hongkong is a good example to prove how luxurious our shoe box flats are. 2. Now, the problems of housing policies against families and babies are obvious. Without housing, how to start a family? Wait and wait, and queue and queue for housing? By the time one gets to the front of the queue, several years have gone by. By the time one gets to the housing unit, several years have gone by. Not forgetting the years needed to save for the down payment. 3. Two income family. Is this conducive to family life? With a 3 tier family, workable. If both parents have to be out most of the day and return home dead tired, what is there left for the family? And if the couple is on their own, the burden and responsibility of looking after babies will be passed to someone else that may bring more problems, stress and even tragedies. 4. Medical cost is not cheap to bear a child and to see them through in good health. 5. Education, transportation, living costs etc all adds up to a huge bill to pay. 6. Cannot afford cars, take public transport. Who doesn’t know? One baby with the pram and all the accessories will be more than enough to lug around. Taking public transport once in a while may be bearable. But to do it for several years, ferrying the kids to grandparent homes or nurseries for day care, kindergarten, play schools, schools, my god, how to cope? And if both parents have to rush to work, and what if there are more than one child? Private transportation is essential! No joke, it is no luxury. Now COE already $70k! KNN. So you want everyone to be economically active, you want everyone to produce children, what for? And you don’t want to build housing. You demand that people book first and wait for 3-4 years. Lao liao by the time the flat comes. And the govt is telling people cannot afford buy smaller and smaller flats. Cui kong lan par song. With the kind of prices for a flat, many young couples will only have to buy smaller and smaller flats or shoe box flats. Oh ya, some will be buying private and landed properties. Now grandparents also must work as cleaners. Why don’t govt provide incentive for grand parents to stay at home and look after grandchildren? Cannot lah, welfare state is bad lah. Looking after children and grand children are individual’s responsibility. Ok, then what the shit is the govt complaining about not enough babies and asking people to produce? Individual responsibility what! There is such a word called holistic approach. But if left hand doesn’t know what right hand is doing, or left hand does one thing, right hand does another, then the balls will ding dong all the way. Oh, they also have a saying, have your cake and eat it as well. Now that is simply ingenious if it works.


Wally Buffet said...

I hope all newly married young couples will not see your post otherwise the fertility rate will drop to "0".


Yes, that's the reality on the ground despite what the MSM may want you to know.

It is definitely not easy to have children in Sinkapoore.

Ah yes, you forgot that besides having to keep up with the Joneses, the next big challenge when these kids go to school is to have lots of tuition teachers to drill them to achieve the perfect score at all stages of the learning curve till they're fit to be let loose on the employment market.

Frankly, I don't envy the kids nowadays. From the time they are born, they are destined for a lifetime of stress and the pressure of making good in adult life.

Contrast this with the carefree days of my generation.

It's not a life. It's a lifetime of achievement orientated servitude.

I am echoing a cautionary word of advice to all my boys.

Stop at two!

Your parents are getting too old for this shit of always keeping a hawk eye on your kids' care givers.

Wally Buffet said...

One more comment before I fetch the little one to nursery.

Here's a foolproof quick fix for the falling fertility rate.

Repeal The Woman's Charter immediately.

Then, even Ah Gong and myself will be able to contribute more to the population pool. After all, it isn't fair for one woman to have to shoulder the pain and the discomfort of giving half a dozen new Sinkapooreans to the country. For us virile males, it's no big deal.

Hehe. :o)

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The Women's Charter is an archaic piece of legislation. In those days the women were dependent on men for a living. Today the women are more educated than men and earning just as much or more. When there is equality in means and ability, how can that charter still be applicable? It is cheating against the manhood.

How many spouses one can marry shall be a freedom of choice by either party. Woman or man, the choice is yours. Then we have fairness and fair play.

Wally Buffet said...


Sir, doing away with the Women's Charter means the Man of the House can have four wives or more and this privilege is not extended to the women!

We don't want the courts to be burdened with countless paternity suits! As someone in authority once said, we are already a very litigious society. WTF!

Hehe. :o)

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

The privilege must be extended to both man and woman. Cannot be one sided lah. Unfair.

Man used to keep mistresses. Today woman will keep misters: )

Matilah_Singapura said...

You'll not get rid of social engineering in good ol' Singapore.

In a mature and rational society (of which there is none) the state will not have any policy which either favors or penalizes families. Families -- off the table completely.

However, since I don't live in Singapore, in this case I support the govt in "designing the future", even if it means a few people need to get fucked up in the process.

Anonymous said...

"Man used to keep mistresses. Today woman will keep misters: )".
They're smarter than man lah, they eat and wipe their mouth with antiseptic. One nite-stand for variety and to know man better.
Btw, other than those issues highlighted by You and Wally, the most sickening fact is that your male offsprings are forced to do National Service, WTF!

Anonymous said...

Your two 'ardent' followers (not me) don't seem to agree on one issue about the procreation factor here.

One said bringing up children in Singapore is the easiest job compared to other countries as espoused somewhere in one of your earlier post.

The other is saying that it is definitely not easy to have children in Singapore.

I am apt to agree with the view that it is getting more difficult and prohibitive to have children in Singapore, judging from my personal experience. Of course, most people too know that.

Certainly, if you look at the issue from my parent's time, having kids was not that costly or parents pressurised compared to even my time, bringing up two kids . Then, the luxury was being able to support the family on one income alone and the kids having the other half to look after them, full time.

And when I see present day parents trying to cope with jobs and family, financial strain and support issues seems to be getting worse. Not many grandparents are able to cope with looking after young and energetic grandchildren, not that they do not want to. Having a maid is not that affordable to a low income family.

I think the issues about why people are not reproducing are well known, but the policies on housing, childcare, medical, etc are hardly conducive to promoting procreation.

Another hundred years talking about it and it will still remain a problem, on the presumption that Singaporeans are not already an extinct specie, looking at the replacement figures.

Anonymous said...

Deep down, everyone knows what causes low fertility rate and at least they know what measures can be used to effectively deal with it. No need to be creative, just take a look at Australia, Sweden, etc.

Sad reality? The government doesn't want everyone to be procreating. They only want people who can afford it to do so. I might sound like a huge conspiracy theorist, but once you realize this is the PAP and the elites you are talking about and they have been doing social engineering for over four decades...

I have already stopped believing in the goodness that exists in those who are in power. I don't subscribe to 'hard truths'.

Anonymous said...

Yeah well. When you get a cowardly government that cowers under the skirt of a despot who rewrites history every time he tells it, making himself out to be some sole genius/hero when he was nothing more than a figurehead riding on the glory of other people's ideas and success. What do you expect?

Look at these two videos of Singapore before the PAP. The infrastructure was already in place. This island was a trading powerhouse from WAY back. All the PAP has done is kill the vibrancy that was Singapore and are killing out it's population too.

Singapore 1938 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvhY6DtfZs

Singapore 1957 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7toyYrqjs

Anonymous said...

What we need is a paradigm shift in our values and ideals as a society if we really want to avoid extinction. I agree with u totally that we do not have a pro-family environment at all. It's hard to enjoy your children and for children to have a childhood when they r subjected to a rat race from an early age. I'm not demanding that my kids do well academically but just the homework, the remedial and supplementary classes and the tuition is enough to take away their free time so that they have no time to b children. And I'm already considered better of bec we r financially comfortable and I can afford to stay home to look after my kids and drive them around. I hope my kids can move overseas when they r older and start a new life there and give their children a better future.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Yes, we need to know what is the meaning of life and what is being children like. To be love and enjoy or to be rats in a race to death.

Then there are cries of complacency will kill us. We cannot stop running, the dash is continuous, from the day a child is born.

There is a price to pay for all this. Where is my child hood?

Matilah_Singapura said...

The neglected story was how thriving S'pore was under the auspices of the British East India Company.

Wah the 2nd video of BOAC coming into Kallang Airport. I can vaguely remember Kallang Airport -- I doubt many youngsters even know that the road to the old Nat Stadium and part of Nicol Hwy used to be the runway at Kallang.

Lee Kuan Yew suffered constant frustrations as a young lawyer -- very few "big timers" took him seriously and he consistently lost out to the other more established lawyers or the matsalehs. So essentially he was bang-balls about the fact that "foreigners" were calling the shots in his country, and imagined that the locals were being shafted.

Nonetheless, S'pore was thriving, many people -- local and foreign enjoyed luxurious lifestyles.

Those indeed were grand, salad days.

But let's face it -- it's still quite happening now -- despite the PAP's meddling.