It's the cost of living, stupid
14 February 2004
Below are two articles: the first a Reuters report on the sickening
depths the PAP has dragged the country into in terms of social
engineering and micromanagement. The second is a piece that Mr
Robert Ho has composed, giving simple insights to the problem of
falling birthrates in Singapore that the PAP seem incapable of
comprehending.
Singapore Searches for Romance as Birth Rate Falls
13 February 2004
Reuters
Jason Szep
Fragrances designed to boost fertility, rock climbing for couples,
and a love boat river raft race advertised to "fan the flames of
romance" from state-sponsored match-making to a "lover's challenge"
foot race, Singapore is approaching Valentine's Day on Saturday
with unprecedented ardour this year, transforming the event into a
year-long campaign to arrest the sliding birth rate.
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong set the mood last week,
holding a traditional match-making event in front of
thousands.
Standing on a wide red stage festooned with gold ribbons and yellow
lights, a group of 10 women handpicked by Lee and his wife tossed
red silk balls known as "xiu-qiu" to a pack of men, also selected
by the Lees, in the hope of successful couplings.
"We are trying all ways," said Lee, son of founding Prime Minister
Lee Kuan Yew, citing government incentives to revitalise
Singapore's libido and encourage families to make more
babies.
In 1990, Singaporean women, on average, gave birth to 1.87 babies
in a lifetime. That fell to 1.42 by 2001 and to 1.37 in 2002 - far
below the 2.1 rate needed for a population to replace itself. Last
year saw another drop to a record low.
"Lovers' challenge"
As childless couples become more common - their proportion tripling
since 1980 to six percent of the population - the latest answer is
to make Valentine's Day every day.
A state-run "Romancing Singapore" campaign has a full-year calendar
of events and gimmicks designed to revive the love life of a
country ranked last for two straight years in a global survey of
most sexually active nations by condom-maker Durex.
Couples can build makeshift rafts from bamboo or rubber tyres in a
"Love Boat" river race or, holding hands, run up a 43-storey office
tower in a "Lovers' Challenge."
Karaoke, drive-in movies, hotel discounts and "love meals" at
restaurants are also part of the campaign, as are Singapore-made
fragrances, a musk for men and a floral one for women, bottled and
given away as "Romancing Singapore eau de parfum."
"Love is all around, all year round" reads an events program. A web
site - www.romancingsingapore.com.sg- offers tips on dating such as
this for the "intellectual artsy man": "Discuss music, art and
books with him to feed his creative juices or give him limited
edition DVDs or collector series graphic novels, which he'll
definitely appreciate."
Many Singaporeans, accustomed to the government's heavy hand in
social engineering, welcome the new emphasis on romance.
Some question whether the strait-laced censors who routinely snip
nudity from commercial movies, ban "Playboy" magazine and have kept
the U.S. hit TV series "Sex and the City" off air, should shoulder
some of the blame.
"I think Romancing Singapore is good but if they want us to be on a
par with other major countries they should let us watch 'Sex and
the City' or read magazines like Cosmopolitan," said 28-year-old
marketing executive Tan Min Yee.
Cosmopolitan was famously banned in 1982 for allegedly promoting
promiscuous values among women. Censors lifted the ban in September
but the magazine has yet to go on sale.
Others explain the lack of babies by citing stress over the
flagging economy. A National University of Singapore survey showed
this was one reason why Singaporeans below the age of 40 had sex
six times a month, far lower than many other societies.
"Sex is still taboo in the Singapore government, and that could rub
off a bit," said Zap Chan, a 39-year-old hair stylist who is
divorced with no children. "But I think the reason why a lot of
people have stopped making babies is fear about the economy and
jobs and the cost of raising children."
Many remember a "two is enough" government campaign nearly three
decades ago to curb sizes of families.
"For some people that was drilled in very, very deep. It becomes
hard to go beyond that even now," he said."
Singaporeans becoming extinct
Robert Ho
9 Feb 2004
The problem, as I see it, is not about sex. It's about the security
of life and lifestyle, about a sense of stability and minimum
standards of living that is conducive to having babies.
For example, if a survey is done, I am quite willing to bet that
rich or high income couples have more children than lower income
ones.
The reason is not difficult to understand.
In Singapore, even the minimum lifestyle is expensive, with the
highest cost in the world for owning a car, even taxis are quite
expensive and public transport creepingly expensive.
Even if you forego the car, the costs of bringing up children can
be very expensive what with everything from diapers to infant
formula milk.
And when the kids grow older, there's the [need for] money for
piano lessons, Math and Chinese tuition, etc.
Then, unless your children are scholarship material, there's the
university fees to consider.
Of course, one can say, why worry? God will provide. And some
parents do, especially the Malay families who have a refreshingly
simple attitude to life and don't bother to plan and budget [and
give up on having kids when money no enough], which explains why
Malays have bigger families with more children. The Chinese, who
are the real targets of PAP intervention, are real worriers.
They worry that they may not be able to give their children the
headstart they want, so they end up having few or no kids. The
reasoning of the Chinese is simple, if you can't pay for your
children to university level [overseas if they are not good enough
for the local Us], then don't have any, or have only one [like I
did].
This is extremely Chinese and most other countries wouldn't
understand this. It is easier to believe that insufficient sex is
the problem and more sex the answer.
The true answer to producing more children in Singapore [at least
among the Chinese because the Malays are happily producing many],
is to so shape the economic environment [the Chinese are economic
animals and a race of shopkeepers], that every child can be assured
of being taken care of all the way up to JC level. I believe that
that is the very minimum level that most Chinese parents will
demand before they commit themselves to have children.
Unfortunately, I don't see this happening soon. Thanks to the
famous PAP policy of "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
If you look at the Scandinvian countries, there is a baby boom
happening because many of the lifestyle securities are guaranteed,
from creches to university, sometimes from cradle to grave welfare.
In Singapore, the PAP looks after itself [first], then the rich and
high income taxpayer [second] and the ordinary folks a distant
third.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
So people don't procreate on an empty stomach, so no babies.
So all this SDU and SDS are, as usual, barking up the wrong
tree.
It is not a shortage of romance but a shortage of lifestyle
security. As long as the ordinary folk cannot guarantee their
income, meaning their job, they don't feel they can have more
children.
Having creches and nurseries, etc, are a minimum start. Then
schools have to be free, not even a token few dollars a month - why
bother to collect when it costs more to collect these few token
dollars than to give it all away for free?
Thus, school should be free up to JC level.
If this is done, more parents will be encouraged and embolden to
have more children.
Oh, and by the way, throw in free or low cost pre-natal care, free
or low-cost delivery of baby by qualified midwife or gynae, etc.
Free medical care as long as the child is in school.
All this sounds too radical?
All this have been done and the result is baby booms in those
countries who have tried.
Of course, the PAP cannot have this. Too radical. Too much money
spent on the people. Better to keep it all under LKY control
instead. So, the result, more SDU activities, etc, which do not
address the root problems.
People want to have sex. People want children. The Chinese have
always wanted large families, if only so there are enough children
to look after them when they age. Children are better than the CPF.
But LKY thought otherwise so the problem persists today and getting
critical. There has never been a Chinese society where children are
unwanted. Only in Singapore under LKY. LKY has created many
problems, and this is only one of them.
If LKY feels self-congratulatory, thinking he has done much for
Singapoore, ha, ha, think again. What he has done is merely
postpone some problems so they crop up in the next generations,
especially now with GCT and LHL. Other problems simply take on
another facade or come in another guise and this baby shortage is
just one of them. When you create economic insecurity and basically
make babies expensive to care for and to grow; when you make people
pay for everything they need [including maids about which much has
been written, suffice to say that the govt levy is more than the
maid's salary], then the problem surfaces in another guise, as a
shortage of babies.
The business of govt has long been studied and thought about by a
great many minds and even great minds. Does LKY really think that
he has the genius to invent a new model of govt that is really
better than say, Britain's? That he has succeeded in making a
Singapore that defies the history and tradition of govts
everywhere? That his "no free lunch' and 'save every dollar' and
'tax everything that moves' policies can be continued indefinitely
without divine retribution?
Ha. The comeuppance may not come in his lifetime but it will come.
It may not come as a direct consequence but come disguised as some
other, equally severe problem. Like this Baby Shortage.
No. There is nothing new in govt. The Welfare State may not work
but LKY's alternative doesn't either. The problems and consequences
surface in another guise, that's all.
It's a zero sum game. If you squeeze the people for all the money
they have, other problems surface - problems over and above having
an impoverished people who cannot spend and hence reduce the
velocity of money to zero, with a retail sector that keeps
shrinking, thereby reducing other sectors.
It's a zero sum game. What you win on the roundabouts, you lose on
the swings.
And with that depressing thought, I leave LKY to ruminate on his
success, which is actually a delayed failure. In govt and politics,
success is usually merely delayed failure.
Thus, my quote for today, "Success in government is often only
delayed failure."