ii. With a belief of better days ahead, families mushroomed in size partly because of the cultural belief of having big families as wealth and guarantee for old age e.g. average 6 to 7 children per family
it would not have been able to meet demand.
v. Squatters and slums were prevalent (refer to 4-3).
vi. Hazards such as fire and disease were rampant (common).
ix. As a new nation and government, it was very difficult to solve all the problems above. Therefore there was a need to control Singapore\u2019s population growth.
1. Stressing the need for small families and its advantages to young couples/parents. This suggested that smaller families were more affordable
2. Promoting the idea that 2 is enough regardless of the child\u2019s sex. This was important because it helped counter the problem caused by wanting male babies to carry on the family name
vi. For example, women would not be given maternity leave for the 3rd or subsequent child born, effectively making it less affordable for working mothers to have more than 2 kids.
vii. The government also gave no income tax relief for the 4th and subsequent child, and increased the delivery charges in government hospitals for each additional child. This effectively made it more expensive for families to have more children.
viii. It also gave no priority to large families in the queue for HDB flats in a move to dissuade couples from having large families. The typical queue time for a HDB flat was about 3-5 years.
i. In 1960, a woman was expected to have 5.76 children. By 1970, that number had dropped to 3.07. But by 1980, it was now 1.82. The numbers continued to fall and by 2000, it was only 1.59 children per woman.
ii. This would suggest that the disincentives laid out by the government and their campaign to promote a small family has obviously changed mindsets enough to reduce the birthrate.
ii. For instance, women now had more opportunities in employment compared to women in the 1960s. This meant that women would prefer the satisfaction of employment versus the vocation of a homemaker.
ii. For instance from 1980 to 1989, single women aged 35-39 increased from 8.5% to 12%. Similarly, single men figures increased from 10.1% to 15.1%.
ii. This would result in a lack of young, cheaper and creative workers to sustain Singapore\u2019s economic development and could even force investors to leave Singapore for other countries.
iii. Lesser young people might also mean a shrinking talent pool required to drive the economy as well as form the leadership in government. This would affect Singapore\u2019s ability to continue good governance as well.
iv. Moreover, Singapore would suffer from fewer young men serving national service to defend Singapore. This might weaken our defence against potential aggressors.
vi. Ultimately, a falling birthrate would result in an ageing population which might put a strain on the country\u2019s resources in taking care of them.
vii. With fewer youthful workers taking care of a bigger group of elderly workers or retirees, the burden on the younger workers and the government would also be greater.
viii. More and more resources would have to be diverted to elderly care in healthcare and other social services, but with less and less contributors.
ix. Thus it is very important that more babies are born to replace the present Singaporean population if we are to maintain our present development.
iv. It also allowed the use of medisave in hospitalization and delivery charges for the 1st 3 children, making it more affordable for couples to have more kids.
v. Income tax relief was also given to the main breadwinner for up to 4 children, thereby freeing more money for families to take care of children.
vi. And a monthly subsidy was given to working mothers for each child up to the forth child attending approved childcare centres. This helps defray the cost of childcare for parents.
i. In 1988 the number of children per woman went up from 1.49 in 1986 to 1.96 in 1988. However, this was due to the Year of the Dragon, an auspicious year for the Chinese in having babies.
vii. One possible reason was that couples and the younger generation were looking at more family friendly practices, such as childcare leave for both the father and mother, more understanding with less damage to careers at the workplace especially to women, extended maternity leave periods for mothers, and more infant care facilities instead of relying on extended families e.g. grandparents to take care of children.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?