Parents, let's solve this problem for our kids

[Nebbermind]

Way2GO:

I agree with u dat d \"Stop at Two\" policy was geared towards solving d job/employment problem at dat time.
:evil: However I do not concur d policy makers were short-sighted in their deliberations.
There is a series of 'population control' policies dat follow a general line of thought in eugenics.
'Have more if u can afford it'
Graduate mother scheme.
It just didn't work out d way d policymakers planned it.

Scholars get-togethers.
dis one probably has some success.

Perhaps the BOSS felt that at that time when there weren't many uni grads, better not to product too many sub standard product :evil:

[alng]

Way2GO:

I agree with u dat d \"Stop at Two\" policy was geared towards solving d job/employment problem at dat time.
However I do not concur d policy makers were short-sighted in their deliberations.
There is a series of 'population control' policies dat follow a general line of thought in eugenics.
'Have more if u can afford it'Graduate mother scheme.
It just didn't work out d way d policymakers planned it.

Scholars get-togethers.
dis one probably has some success.

I am not sure what incentives there were in place to encourage 'Have more if u can afford it' 30 years ago. What I do remember is my uncles and aunties complaining that they had problems enrolling their kids to primary schools. Looks like there were more penalties for 'having more than 2'.

[verykiasu2010]

alng:

Way2GO:

I agree with u dat d \"Stop at Two\" policy was geared towards solving d job/employment problem at dat time.
However I do not concur d policy makers were short-sighted in their deliberations.
There is a series of 'population control' policies dat follow a general line of thought in eugenics.
'Have more if u can afford it'Graduate mother scheme.
It just didn't work out d way d policymakers planned it.

Scholars get-togethers.
dis one probably has some success.

I am not sure what incentives there were in place to encourage 'Have more if u can afford it' 30 years ago. What I do remember is my uncles and aunties complaining that they had problems enrolling their kids to primary schools. Looks like there were more penalties for 'having more than 2'.

used to have \"Special Tax Rebate\" that decreases with increasing age of child-bearing introduced in the 90s, etc etc just go google IRAS Procreation Tax Incentives, graduate mother scheme with priority in Pri 1 registration etc

some were introduced while the posters on \"2 is enough\" are still at the bus stops .... some tax law professors even joked to name their kids taxkid 1, taxkid 2, etc after the test kits showed positive..those were in the 80s

but as singaporeans get more and more affluent and preferred the lifestyle of 'dinkies' and continued to push back marriage and child bearing ....this we what we get but not unique to singapore

[Fat Mama]

I am the fourth child. My parents said they had to pay $50 fine before they could bring me home. That was 40 years ago.

[daisyt]

Fat Mama:

I am the fourth child. My parents said they had to pay $50 fine before they could bring me home. That was 40 years ago.

Then if could't pay up, what would have happened to you? :?

[BeContented]

verykiasu2010:

alng:

[quote=\"Way2GO\"]
I agree with u dat d \"Stop at Two\" policy was geared towards solving d job/employment problem at dat time.
However I do not concur d policy makers were short-sighted in their deliberations.
There is a series of 'population control' policies dat follow a general line of thought in eugenics.
'Have more if u can afford it'Graduate mother scheme.
It just didn't work out d way d policymakers planned it.

Scholars get-togethers.
dis one probably has some success.

I am not sure what incentives there were in place to encourage 'Have more if u can afford it' 30 years ago. What I do remember is my uncles and aunties complaining that they had problems enrolling their kids to primary schools. Looks like there were more penalties for 'having more than 2'.

used to have \"Special Tax Rebate\" that decreases with increasing age of child-bearing introduced in the 90s, etc etc just go google IRAS Procreation Tax Incentives, graduate mother scheme with priority in Pri 1 registration etc

some were introduced while the posters on \"2 is enough\" are still at the bus stops .... some tax law professors even joked to name their kids taxkid 1, taxkid 2, etc after the test kits showed positive..those were in the 80s

but as singaporeans get more and more affluent and preferred the lifestyle of 'dinkies' and continued to push back marriage and child bearing ....this we what we get but not unique to singapore[/quote]Agree. While the older generation might have responded to the policy......the younger generation prefer a 'free-er' lifestyle. I know many who either didn't want to get married or refused to have kids (or stop at 1) citing freedom, career, want more $ to enjoy life/travel/branded stuff etc. Many are no longer willing to give up their lifestyle to accommodate kids.....
IMO, those policies probably have speed up the process a little....but Singapore WILL reach this stage naturally.......

[SilentHermit]

I read those papers published by PMO and the data is frigthening. No wonder LKY say have more babies, if not we will have to fold up. Drastic actions are needed, wonder will this government live up to it.


I have some ideas, wonder if it would work. Have published them in my blog. Hope can think of more solutions soon....

http://silent-hermit.blogspot.sg/
http://silenthermit2.blogspot.sg/

(If its wrong to post links here to send people to my blog, pls let me know. Just that too much text involved, dont know if I should post them here too).

[Laura02]

But if you look at this from a global perspective, the population of the world is growing exponentially. We are using up our natural resources faster than we conserve them. How are we going to meet the basic needs of everyone, much less meet the growing expectation of each succeeding generation. The rich-poor divide is growing, and will eventually destabilize society as we know it now.

The options on the table now are : import people to make up the numbers or encourage more SC to have babies. Neither seem palatable to the majority of SC. If we import children … As in allow and encourage adoption …

[3Boys]

Excellent thread SH. We do indeed need to work hard at this problem of procreation. As much as I hate to admit it, part of the answer may be in the liberalising of concepts of what a traditional family unit is. So support for single parent families may need to come to the fore. Better work life balance, certainly.


Also, we need to encourage our children to have kids earlier. Seeing so many couples struggle with sub-fertility when they reach mid-30s and beyond before trying for children, is really heartbreaking. It is real, but many couples don’t think it will happen to them.

Last, all the finger pointing at failed g’ment policies is unhelpful. Yes, they made a big boo-boo, the policies, and amateurish clumsy attempts at eugenics plainly inequitable and derisory. But its in the past, no point crying over spilt milk. The g’ment have plainly recanted their past policies, so lets not use that as an excuse not to have children, just to spite the PAP.

[3Boys]

VERY nice blog, by the way.