What does the government have in mind when they rolled out the new policies in targeting the low fertility rate? What are the underlying assumptions when making these policies?
1) if you are NOT a working mother, then you will be EXCLUDED from the benefits.
Probable assumptions :
1)You are probably lowly educated and not contributing much to the economy, and hence your income is insignificant to justify staying in the workforce after giving birth. You are better off looking after your own kids. Therefore, you don't need any child care subsidy and what not. Your kids are probably not going to make it very far anyway??
2)You are unlikely to be tertiary educated because it does not make economic sense to be a stay at home mom if you were. You should be working and leaving your kids to someone else to look after and therefore, you will be entitled to all the benefits, monetary or otherwise.
But, are these true and fair assumptions?
Then, why do we have babies to begin with? Just to help the government look good on their statistics? We carry the babies for 9 months, and then spend 4 months looking after them and off they go to infant care centres thereafter.
Does this not defeat the purpose of having babies? Are the policies doing justice to the non-working mothers? Aren't they better candidates to boost the statistics?
2 days ago
8 comments:
indeed
$$$ should not be the motive to have babies. Each of us can live within means even from having two income to just one income. many things are good to hv not must hv to live comfortably
recent news also show that the gahmen wants more mothers to go outside to work, they want mothers to contribute to the society (giving birth and working), that's why nothing for SAHM :(
if they give some perks to SAHM, then soon more women will choose to quit the job.
however, it's personal choice to b a SAHM. till now, I hv no regrets abt it although having to miss out the 6 days of CCL, because the greatest gift is to be able to witness my kids' growing up, to be there for them.
does that make us superwomen? give ourselves a pat on our back!!,,thanks for comments :)
it's good to be a mother but sometimes feel frustrated also..haha
you know, i had always wanted to feedback to the whoever-making-the-policy that instead of whatever they are currenty offering, maybe, they (govt) should also pay the SAHM a monthly salary on per child basis.
Yes, $ is not the main motive for having babies but it definately a deterrant for those who wants to have more..
Its not easy being a SAHM giving up the social status/freedom for the good upbring of our child for the future society. Sometimes, i think being a SAHM is more tiring and contributing more to society than WM..
back me up, won't you?! ;)
yes definitely...in fact, i lost much weight after assuming this challenging role...one more post to be released soon...look fwd to your support too!
Bingo! I have the same thought as you!
Indeed, Singapore Government try very hard on this. But they seems likes neglect those SAHM la!
I think the gov shld target the SAHM instead bcos they already doing the job:) Is easier to convince them than convincing the working one. I feel the benefit shld be for both working and non working women so everyone benefit from it..I think whatever the gov do will not help much. I think Singaporean is giving themselves too much excuses for not having babies. Those not willing to sacrifice to hv a babies will always give excuses. I'm sure there are a lot more countries that are just as fast pace as Singapore but still produce good birth rates.
Post a Comment