<![CDATA[‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’]]>[quote]Singapore’s downward trend of population growth is damaging to its economy, said former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew on Friday.


Speaking at a Tanjong Pagar group representation constituency Chinese New Year dinner, Lee said that given our almost record-low birth rate of 1.2 from last year, Singapore will need to depend on immigrants to “make up our numbers”, reported The Straits Times (ST).

He also shared the breakdown — 1.08 for Chinese, 1.09 for Indians and 1.64 for Malays — with 2.1 as the benchmark replacement rate, reported TODAY.

“In other words the population of Chinese Singaporeans in the next generation, 18 to 20 years, will half,” he was quoted by the paper as saying as well.

Comparing the number of babies born in Singapore when he was prime minister in 1959 (more than 62,000) and the number of babies born in 2011 (about 36,000), Lee commented that the task of increasing the nation’s population is its “biggest challenge”.

He added that having babies may be a personal matter, but has “considerable consequences” for Singapore, reported ST.

He noted how trends of women being more highly educated and the movement toward greater gender equality at the workplace have contributed to the phenomenon of a declining birth rate, adding that currently, some 44.2 per cent of men and 31 per cent of women between the ages of 30 and 34 are still single.

The broadsheet also reported that Lee compared Singapore’s economy to that of Japan’s, saying that their resistance to receiving immigrants has resulted in stagnation in its economy.

“The Japanese have large reserves and can withstand slow growth for a long time,” he was quoted as saying, adding that the choice to take a hostile stance to immigrants is something that Singapore “cannot afford to make”.

“Like it or not, unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants,” he added.[/quote]http://sg.news.yahoo.com/%E2%80%98unless-we-have-more-babies--we-need-to-accept-immigrants%E2%80%99.html

so the root of the problem...why birth rate declined? :slapshead:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/topic/31638/unless-we-have-more-babies-we-need-to-accept-immigrantsRSS for NodeSun, 19 Apr 2026 18:09:00 GMTSun, 05 Feb 2012 13:10:27 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:57:45 GMT]]>

ksi:

The onset of their thought process to have children is not an incentive driven one by the govt. However, there are real pragmatic issues in life and when discussed in detail became constraints on why they would not want to have more children. If you translate these constraints to help that the govt can render, then what you say is perhaps true as it sounds like asking for incentives but I see real pragmatic issues behind some of the claims that even incentives cannot help.

Suffice to say, people with much family support will not have major issues bringing up a child in Singapore. It really takes a \"village to raise a child\" here and being very small families these days, even the luxury of extended family help is largely missing.
Wow, so well put. :goodpost:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715153https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715153Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:57:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:53:45 GMT]]>

ksi:

Suffice to say, people with much family support will not have major issues bringing up a child in Singapore. It really takes a \"village to raise a child\" here and being very small families these days, even the luxury of extended family help is largely missing.
That's fair.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715151https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715151Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:53:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:44:57 GMT]]>

3Boys:
Well ksi,

I think my point has been well made by the last few posts, haven't they? 😉

Not quite 3Boys but you probably got it half-right 😉 . The onset of their thought process to have children is not an incentive driven one by the govt. However, there are real pragmatic issues in life and when discussed in detail became constraints on why they would not want to have more children. If you translate these constraints to help that the govt can render, then what you say is perhaps true as it sounds like asking for incentives but I see real pragmatic issues behind some of the claims that even incentives cannot help.

Suffice to say, people with much family support will not have major issues bringing up a child in Singapore. It really takes a \"village to raise a child\" here and being very small families these days, even the luxury of extended family help is largely missing.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715138https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715138Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:44:57 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:09:04 GMT]]>Well ksi,

I think my point has been well made by the last few posts, haven't they? 😉

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715094https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715094Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:09:04 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:50:28 GMT]]>

happy to be mum:
3Boys:

[quote=\"ksi\"]

That's good insight. I also do not intend to imply that any of us here have children 'because of incentives'.

But why all the GRIPING then?

The corollary of NOT having children because the g'ment is not doing enough or that the environment is too stressful, is that we would have MORE children if the 'g'ment did more or the environment were less stressful', yes? It certainly comes through in the posts.

I don' think any parents will just have children in Singapore because of \"incentives\" because in the first place, the \"incentives\" were nothing great to speak about.

DH and I have kids because we want to, because we love kids. Currently we have 2 DS and we are struggling for the past year as whether to go ahead and try for a 3rd one. Our hearts really want it but this time round, we pause to think...think alot harder...

When we first had our DS1 & DS2, we never think, were \"garang\" and just went ahead. Both DH and myself do not have a good family support to help us to take care of our kids. DS came from a broken family, & my mum belongs to the \"I don't want to take care of grandkids\" catergory. So we need to rely on maid as I need to continue working. Financially speaking, we can afford to have a 3rd kid but after raising two boys, we know along the way, anything can happen and tends to worry more...

But why all the GRIPPING?? (If you are rich, you do not need any incentives or help, is for the common middle \"sandwich\" class, with young kids to raise and maybe old parents to look after)

because if our government can :
(1) scrap the stupid maid levy ($0!!) for parents with kids (try to raise kids yourself when both parents still need to work without a domestic help and you will know it is tough)
(2) increase the infant care & childcare subsidy (when government increased the subsidies, the infant / childcare centres also increase their fees, stupid right?). Maybe government should look into the family income to determine the childcare subsidy amount like Australia.
(3) non working mother should have the same amount of infant / childcare subsidy. I have been in the situation whereby I almost need to quit my job due to maid issues and was weighing to put my DS2 in childcare cause I need to guide DS1 with his school work and realized it is so stupid that non working mothers get half the subsidy only when they need it more than the working mothers.
(4) Subsidised medication costs for children even if you bring your children to see GP or specialist. In Australia, there is the system calls \"Medicare\". You can bring your children to GP or specialist and can claim certain % of your bill from \"Medicare\" Currently, I think we can only get subsidised lower rate in Polyclinic?


In this post, I have exclude those couples who simply will not have any kids, incentives or no and also exclude those who will only firmly stop at one. I have quite a number of friends who are in the same dilemma as me with 2 kids already and they actually are thinking hard of a No.3, all in mid 30s. If we do not love to have kids, do you think we will ever think of this question? If our government child policies will to be more \"attractive\" There will be more \"Yes\" to a number 3 and our population can grow and we will not need to resort to accept more immigrants to boost our population...[/quote]
I am thinking childcare leaves also not enough... child keeps falling sick, for my kid, especially after going to childcare, and then if both parents are working? Not enough childcare leave, as those leave might be taken if childcare centre closed for cleaning or meeting etc... so parents have to deduct their own annual leave? Not enough leave then how?

Grandparents to help? What if they got to work till don't know how old? Or if they don't want to look after grandchildren? Why burden them to look after own children?

Childcare subsidy is lesser for SAHM. :sad:

So why have so many kids if no time, not enough money to look after them well? 🤷 Then will they grow up unhappy?

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715071https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/715071Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:50:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:00:21 GMT]]>

buds:
Daddy 😧

Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:

That'd mean another accident you know? :yikes:

Shows what a horrible driver buds_hubs is won't it? :faint:

:rotflmao:

some accidents are made

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714848https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714848Tue, 21 Feb 2012 05:00:21 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:00:33 GMT]]>

buds:
limlim:

never put on safety helmet huh..? :evil: :evil:


I dislike helmets. :politebleah:

so.. never plan properly factoring in route conditions or never check weather reports.. :evil: :evil:

or mebbe the brake spoilt.......

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714761https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714761Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:00:33 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:58:08 GMT]]>

happy to be mum:

(4) Subsidised medication costs for children even if you bring your children to see GP or specialist. In Australia, there is the system calls \"Medicare\". You can bring your children to GP or specialist and can claim certain % of your bill from \"Medicare\" Currently, I think we can only get subsidised lower rate in Polyclinic?
fyi.. if parents bring their child to A&E, need to pay $75 (mebbe increased) upfront and this amt can't even use medisave!

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714759https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714759Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:58:08 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:54:46 GMT]]>

limlim:
never put on safety helmet huh..? :evil: :evil:

I dislike helmets. :politebleah:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714755https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714755Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:54:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:51:29 GMT]]>

3Boys:
ksi:



That's good insight. I also do not intend to imply that any of us here have children 'because of incentives'.

But why all the GRIPING then?

The corollary of NOT having children because the g'ment is not doing enough or that the environment is too stressful, is that we would have MORE children if the 'g'ment did more or the environment were less stressful', yes? It certainly comes through in the posts.

I don' think any parents will just have children in Singapore because of \"incentives\" because in the first place, the \"incentives\" were nothing great to speak about.

DH and I have kids because we want to, because we love kids. Currently we have 2 DS and we are struggling for the past year as whether to go ahead and try for a 3rd one. Our hearts really want it but this time round, we pause to think...think alot harder...

When we first had our DS1 & DS2, we never think, were \"garang\" and just went ahead. Both DH and myself do not have a good family support to help us to take care of our kids. DS came from a broken family, & my mum belongs to the \"I don't want to take care of grandkids\" catergory. So we need to rely on maid as I need to continue working. Financially speaking, we can afford to have a 3rd kid but after raising two boys, we know along the way, anything can happen and tends to worry more...

But why all the GRIPPING?? (If you are rich, you do not need any incentives or help, is for the common middle \"sandwich\" class, with young kids to raise and maybe old parents to look after)

because if our government can :
(1) scrap the stupid maid levy ($0!!) for parents with kids (try to raise kids yourself when both parents still need to work without a domestic help and you will know it is tough)
(2) increase the infant care & childcare subsidy (when government increased the subsidies, the infant / childcare centres also increase their fees, stupid right?). Maybe government should look into the family income to determine the childcare subsidy amount like Australia.
(3) non working mother should have the same amount of infant / childcare subsidy. I have been in the situation whereby I almost need to quit my job due to maid issues and was weighing to put my DS2 in childcare cause I need to guide DS1 with his school work and realized it is so stupid that non working mothers get half the subsidy only when they need it more than the working mothers.
(4) Subsidised medication costs for children even if you bring your children to see GP or specialist. In Australia, there is the system calls \"Medicare\". You can bring your children to GP or specialist and can claim certain % of your bill from \"Medicare\" Currently, I think we can only get subsidised lower rate in Polyclinic?


In this post, I have exclude those couples who simply will not have any kids, incentives or no and also exclude those who will only firmly stop at one. I have quite a number of friends who are in the same dilemma as me with 2 kids already and they actually are thinking hard of a No.3, all in mid 30s. If we do not love to have kids, do you think we will ever think of this question? If our government child policies will to be more \"attractive\" There will be more \"Yes\" to a number 3 and our population can grow and we will not need to resort to accept more immigrants to boost our population...

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714751https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714751Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:51:29 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:50:02 GMT]]>

buds:
Daddy 😧

Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:

That'd mean another accident you know? :yikes:

Shows what a horrible driver buds_hubs is won't it? :faint:

:rotflmao:

never put on safety helmet huh..? :evil: :evil:

or didn't install road blocks....

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714747https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714747Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:50:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:44:09 GMT]]>

ksi:
3Boys:


We talk a lot about the previous 2 child policy as a big excuse or disincentive to procreation. How many of us in this forum have children conceived under those conditions?

Pardon the language, but this irritates me no end. I just can't see any of my kids as being the result of an 'incentive'.

To your question, we had our child because we wanted to, nothing to do with incentives, in fact, we ignored the incentive and never even claimed baby bonus, that was how bo chap we were.

And as a matter of fact, many does \"stop at two\" because of the dis-incentives.. isn't it?

it is mentioned that none of the parents here have conceived under those conditions..

But, does it not a fact that many of the LIMITED pool of parents here WERE conceived under those conditions?

some only talked about the parents not producing more..

but the other fact is that we have LESS parents (to-be) to began with..

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714738https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714738Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:44:09 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:42:36 GMT]]>

Daddy 😧
Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:
That'd mean another accident you know? :yikes:

Shows what a horrible driver buds_hubs is won't it? :faint:

:rotflmao:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714735https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714735Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:42:36 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:39:31 GMT]]>Jack Neo will be busy making neu movie then this year…


"Two NO enough."

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714723https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714723Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:39:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:34:30 GMT]]>

3Boys:

I think if we were all better at procreation, we will have much lower dependence on FTs.
New slogan..

do NOT \"STOP AT TWO\"...... :evil: :evil:

and

\"TWO is NOT Enuff\"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Stop-at-Two.jpg

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714710https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714710Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:34:30 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:15:03 GMT]]>Buds.... :udawoman:

Made in SG... By SG...
4th one on the way?
:razz:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714683https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714683Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:15:03 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:07:24 GMT]]>

3Boys:
buds:

Romances with own spouse orh..


Not romance outside. :politebleah:

Pro-creation with own spouse orh..

Not with ones outside. :torchme:

O yeah, need to be specific eh? :evil:

In the light of things of late... guess one can never be too specific? 😉
Aniwaes, i wanted to have only one. But i have three! The other two
were... ermm.. 🦆 .. accidents .. so it means that i got accidental incentives.

😉

That said, we still love them all the same.. yes.. incentives or not.. accidents
or not. :please:

Btw, when you mentioned in another post about \"if we're good at pro-creating..\" :romance:

...with three children now, i consider good already le ba.. :please: My hubs not FT
btw.. so i added three Singaporean children to the pool liao. :grphug:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714673https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714673Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:07:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:56:37 GMT]]>

janet_lee88:
buds:

Romances with own spouse orh..


Not romance outside. :politebleah:

Pro-creation with own spouse orh..

Not with ones outside. :torchme:

Procreation ? That is not the difficult thing..it's the bringing up that is TOUGH.
Romancing own spouse...I get the pic...I think many here also :rotflmao: With you-know-who expelled and those 2 men romancing SAME woman...better be specific now.

Specific oredi leh. Spouse means... A marriage partner; a husband or wife.
The 2 men oredi have spouses so the same woman they shared... emmm..
NOT! :rant:

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714656https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714656Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:56:37 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:50:27 GMT]]>d number of emigrants seemed to be missing in d equation.

how many leave SGP shores for d last 10 years or more?
Why is NPTD (national Population & Talent Div) silent on dis?
In tracking pop change, I think dis has to accounted for.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714643https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714643Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:50:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:43:59 GMT]]>

3Boys:
We talk a lot about the previous 2 child policy as a big excuse or disincentive to procreation. How many of us in this forum have children conceived under those conditions?


Its ancient history, we use as a stick to beat the g'ment to vent our frustrations, nothing more.

Having children is a personal choice, I don't hold it against anyone for choosing not to have children, whatever the reason. But to blame the g'ment or lack of incentives, to me, is pure BS.

Pardon the language, but this irritates me no end. I just can't see any of my kids as being the result of an 'incentive'.
Of coz d previous Stop at 2 policy has an impact on current pop.
Take a look at how d Fabonacci sequence tracks d pop growth of rabbits.
If d pop growth wasn't curtailed then, it can be argued dat d total local pop wld be greater now.
So there is some validity to ppl raising dat as a counterpoint.

However, I wld agree dat its unfair to pin it on d gahmen now
since there were good valid reasons to implement dat policy at dat point in history.
Circumstances change so policy must change with it.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714635https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714635Tue, 21 Feb 2012 02:43:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:28:01 GMT]]>

concern2:
3Boys:


My grandparents on both sides had a total of 15 children between them, with a much lower level of resources than we have now. And don't tell me that raising kids is more stressful these days than before, to me that is the biggest C*** of all.

Yes, 3Boys. But did your grandparents have 15 kids because they listened to the govt? My point was not to say raising kids is more stressful these days. Ksi is quite right to point out that it not about incentive or disincentives (remember I did also mention we need no perks or goodies for budget?)

Too much garmen intervention is not good for people. Not too precise in communicating my thoughts, but I guess that would be closer to my point.

Ok, I get it. Thanks.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714536https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714536Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:28:01 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:27:02 GMT]]>

ksi:

I read that concern2 is saying the same thing as you. Having children is a personal matter, nothing to do with the govt, so she does not want to hear any more crap to urge citizens to do this and that. She is certainly not asking for incentives.

To your question, we had our child because we wanted to, nothing to do with incentives, in fact, we ignored the incentive and never even claimed baby bonus, that was how bo chap we were.
That's good insight. I also do not intend to imply that any of us here have children 'because of incentives'.

But why all the GRIPING then?

The corollary of NOT having children because the g'ment is not doing enough or that the environment is too stressful, is that we would have MORE children if the 'g'ment did more or the environment were less stressful', yes? It certainly comes through in the posts.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714534https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714534Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:27:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:23:52 GMT]]>

3Boys:

My grandparents on both sides had a total of 15 children between them, with a much lower level of resources than we have now. And don't tell me that raising kids is more stressful these days than before, to me that is the biggest C*** of all.
Yes, 3Boys. But did your grandparents have 15 kids because they listened to the govt? My point was not to say raising kids is more stressful these days. Ksi is quite right to point out that it not about incentive or disincentives (remember I did also mention we need no perks or goodies for budget?)

Too much garmen intervention is not good for people. Not too precise in communicating my thoughts, but I guess that would be closer to my point.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714531https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714531Tue, 21 Feb 2012 01:23:52 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to ‘Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants’ on Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:55:48 GMT]]>Our higher population does not always guaranteed higher GDP, since we are still affected by global economy.


Our higher population does not always guaranteed higher productivity. With the recent calls for improving productivity, I think it is on the decline instead.

Most if not all employers are already used to the cheap SG labour costs. (hospitality, construction, etc)
Now employers are making noise over the FW measures.
Higher operating costs? Pls use the real SG labour cost as the benchmark lah.
If we continue to market SG as a cheap labour market, we will always lose out to some other countries.

Do you think our immigrants’ future generation will be cheap labour? I don’t think so.

]]>https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714453https://forum.kiasuparents.com/post/714453Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:55:48 GMT