Having children is a bad economic proposition

When one looks from the angle of profit and loss or the yield of an investment, having babies is a bad gamble. Statistically, only the top 20% of a cohort would be making decent returns in terms of profit. Maybe 30% will break even and the rest outright losses.

Let me show some numbers. Bringing up a child will easily cost between $500k to a million or more. Giving an expectation of 5% per annum return and a productive life of 30 years, the return should be 150% plus cost. A million dollar upbringing cost would need a return of $2.5m and a $500k cost will need a $1.25m return. To earn $2.5m a Sinkie must bring in an average of $83k pa for 30 years. How many average Sinkies could earn this amount? For a return of $1.25m the average income should be $42k. This is likely to be the bulk of the average Sinkie’s income.

Put the money in properties, a $500k investment over 30 years is likely to give a return of 10 or 20 times, capital gain and rental income. This means between $5m to $10m in the Singapore context. Why would people want to indulge in the precarious and risky venture of child bearing for so little return and so many angsts?

Bringing up a child can be a bad dream, some a nightmare, and worst, could be a life time of hellish experience. To make things more disgusting, you have a govt lusting at every child as a digit to contribute to economic growth, to pay for someone’s sports car or multi million properties, and to defend and die for dunno what.

When everyone is looking at child bearing from the economic point of view, it just does not make sense to bring up a child. It is too costly, and to most parents, a losing proposition. Many would have to write it off as bad debt or capex to be depreciated over 30 years if lucky, or a lifetime of cost incurring negative asset. Does anyone look at a child as a new life, to be cared for, to be loved, to be provided for, to live life and to enjoy life, instead of becoming any inanimate cog in the economy?

What is the purpose of paying foreigners to represent Sin?

The govt is still paying a lot of money to foreigners to represent the country in sports. No doubt some have taken up citizenships before donning on the national colours. Would it be better to spend the money to develop and train our own children, our own stocks, to represent the country?

Yes, the table tennis team won two medals for the country at the Olympic Games. So what? Where was the euphoria and the pride of achievement, that we won Olympic medals? The victory seems so hollow. It was as good as forgotten the day after.

When would the govt start to think Singapore, spending money on our own children, giving jobs and opportunities to our own? Or shall we continue down this path of paying good money to foreign sportsmen at the expense of our own kind just to look good, or giving good jobs to foreigners instead of foreigners creating good jobs to jobless PMETs?

How many millions of dollars have the govt spent and will continue to spend on these foreigners, some PRs, some turn new citizens and some still non citizens. Do we need to spend this kind of money, or want to spend this kind of money? What is in it for us? So that we can go to London to cheer them on?

Have you seen a PSLE child cry?

The PSLE results are always met with joyous celebration and recognition for the bright little boys and girls who have done well. The parents will be proud, the schools and teachers will be proud, the community will be proud too of the children’s success. How many people will notice the little boys and girls sobbing in the corners, starring blankly at the result slips which said, failed, or average, no good?

At the tender age of 12, little children must face a devastating blow of knowing that they are NG. When the parents are understanding it may be a consolation. When parents are unreasonable and daft to place all hopes and desires on the poor child’s PSLE result, life can be very miserable. Many children will live in fear when the results are not up to their parents’ expectation.

Is it fair to put the poor young things through such a traumatic experience when many did not really know what is going on? Actually, for those who are less sensitive and a bit dull, it is a blessing. It is those that are aware of the hopes and wishes placed on them by their parents and knowing what the parents want and what it means to fail to achieve that will face the full might of being a failure at such a young age. And they would not know what to do, and who to turn to. The sight of their disappointing parents could be so frighteningly cold and ruthless.

I am no expert in child education and child psychology or schooling. I can only express my feelings for putting little children through such a pressurizing situation and the trauma they must faced, alone, no counseling to ease the pain and fear. As adults, are we being too cruel to the children because we think it is good for them, or because we don’t bother to think and look at how things will affect them emotionally and psychologically from their perspectives? Children can feel hurt and rejected too.

Would it not be better to delay this big cut to a later age when the children are older and stronger mentally to take the blow? The assessment of children at PSLE level and the stakes involved have put a lot of pressure on the parents and children, and many would have their childhood deprived, just to make the mark. Can the system be tweaked to delay this assessment and allow the children to grow up as children and load the pressure when they are in their teens?

No doubt some kind of assessments must come their way to shift out the better from the less academically inclined. Must it be done at so young an age? Would it make any difference to do it later and let parents and children have a more enriching life when the children are growing up, to have a childhood to hold dear to?

Can the PSLE be scrapped and children be allowed to remain in the same schools till Secondary Two when all the streaming can then come in? Admittedly such a major change would affect a whole complex system of education and the infrastructure that is supporting the system. It is a massive task to change and many lives and jobs and systems will be affected. But if it is for the better, no matter how mammoth the task is, how arduous the problems, it is worth the effort to change.

We need to be kinder to the children. Putting so much burden and responsibility on a 12th year old is too much for the child to bear. The adults are simply too ruthless in their expectations from little children. Then again all the talks about kindness and graciousness are mere talks, aspirations, not to mean anything. Let’s talk economics and growth. Children are invisible and cannot feel pain, hurt or suffering.

All residential properties will be 99 years

Someone commented that the most effective measure to bring down property prices will be to convert all residential properties to 99 year lease. No more freehold, no more 999 years leases. Such a scenario or idea will send shivers down the spines to the landlords, the rich and powerful that have hoarded multiple freehold properties to last till perpetuity. Their ambition was to protect their wealth, to continue to be theirs longer than the life of dynasties that do not last a couple of centuries.



The ground rule has been designed by the rich and powerful to ensure that their family fortunes will last forever, or at least 999 years. That is normal as anyone in a position of power will only think of their own interests first. In many third world countries, the assumption to political power is like owning the right to be rich, to build their family fortunes.



Converting all residential properties from freehold to 99 year lease is unlikely to happen in the near future. No way will the rich and powerful allow this to happen as long as they are in control. Reality will see them consolidating their interests and wealth even more firmly, to the extent of being enshrined in the constitution.



The rich and powerful will continue to amass their fortunes in freehold properties. And with the removal of estate duties, there is nothing to prevent them from keeping their fortunes for many generations to come, forever. The new rich too will be doing the same, acquiring whatever freehold properties they could lay their hands on.



The unfortunate part is that the number of freehold residential properties is limited. A time will come when there will be hardly any left for the newcomers. The other unfortunate development is that the new rich and powerful would likely come from the HDB flat owners or 99 year leasehold owners. The super rich and powerful cannot be blessed with good fortunes forever. It has never been the case. All the good things must come to an end.



When the latecomers find themselves fenced off from the freehold properties they so desired and untouchable, it will be their turn to fiddle with the laws to give them a chance to acquire them. When all the freehold properties are no longer available, and no new freehold properties can be created, the new power brokers are going to do things to get a hold of the freehold properties. If they can’t buy them, they will change the laws to get them.



One possibility is to amend the land/property ownership laws to make all residential properties 99 years. If such a change takes place, no one needs to bother about estate duties anymore. The wealth and fortunes of the old rich will be recycled more regularly and the cycle is shorter. And it will be their own selfish wrong doings, to corner everything for themselves to the point that the new rich and powerful will be left with nothing but force to manipulate the law and the system to get what they want. By then the situation will be so ripe for a property ownership revolution.



It can happen and will happen when the new rich and powerful are shut out from their desires and wants. In human nature, all schemes are designed to self destruct no matter how superficially brilliant they appeared to be. Because of greed and selfishness, all such schemes will breakdown eventually.



What could be used as the excuse is the need for more land with an increasing population. The Land Acquisition Act will be reintroduced to acquire all landed properties in the Bukit Timah and Tanglin areas for redevelopment. The interesting part will be that these properties would by then be worth several hundred millions each and the govt of the day would not be able to compensate them adequately. History would be re-enacted when such properties would be acquired at a pittance to the govt on grounds of national interests. The carefully crafted laws and social political system to protect these properties till kingdom comes will go up in a wisp of smoke. Why not, when empires and dynasties could crumble, why can’t such inequitable laws make ways for a more equitable system? The more intractable is the system, the more unjust it becomes, the faster it would be done away with. The law of natural justice and social justice must prevail. Man proposes, heaven disposes.

I want to be a cab driver

The glorious reports of cab drivers earning $6k to $7k must be very attractive to many out of job PMETs. This used to be peanuts at one time. But today, with a stock market that is dying and performing worst than a fish market, when the income of many remisiers is less than a fishmonger or butcher or vegetable seller in the wet market, becoming a cab driver is now an attractive option. I am seriously thinking about this and would have jumped in if not of the risk of being beaten up by a drunk or murdered by a desperado. There is no need to risk life and limbs to be a cab driver. Leave it to the younger heroes that could defend themselves when attacked or their youthful bulk will keep the attackers at bay.

How about being a school teacher? Read that there is a great advertisement flying in Australia that our MOE is recruiting experienced teachers from down under. Some commented that with so many PMETs available, and a few thousand remisiers waiting to join the queue, perhaps MOE may want to send its flyer to these professionals who are also armed with quite a few pieces of papers and a mountain of life experiences to share with the young. Would not the MOE pick on our locals to educate our young or prefer to choose from some unknowns who would expect to be paid more than the locals, with housing and relocation allowances added?

I may seriously thinking of sharing my blogging experience with the youth in schools if I get an invitation to do so. Oh, I also got history as my background, having done some lecturing in National Education at one time. I may be an old ginger but physically fitter than many 50 year olds. Maybe MOE is specifically looking for the breath of experience that foreign talents can bring to educate our young with a new set of values and outlook in life. I have so many things to impart to our impressionable young, and to teach how not to cross OB markers as well. Or I may apply to go for retraining to be a masseur or a male nurse or to assist as a helper in a nursing home or hospice. Think of it, there are plenty of jobs available for unwanted PMETs. Just go for some training to downgrade the expectations.