Singapore
Population Policies
Case Study: Singapore
Total population = 4.3 million
 Resident population = 3.5 million



Singaporeans and Permanent Residents
Fertility rate

Declining since 1960s to 1.26 (in 2003)
 One
of the lowest in the world!
Case Study: Singapore
http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2004/budget_speech/images/tfr.jpg
Population changes

Post-war baby boom followed by a period
of economic restructuring and fertility
declines that have seen rates continuing to
fall after reaching replacement-level in
1975.
Population changes
The situation then (late 60s - 70s)









Industrialisation
Housing shortage
Unemployment
Net population increase (BR, DR)
Incentives for foreign investment
Investment in public sector
Economic opportunities
Education system improvements
AIM: Improve standards of living
Anti-natalist policy (1966-1982)

1966: Singapore Family Planning and
Population Board (SFPPB)
family planning services and
 to disseminate the small family norm

Pop. Growth 2 per cent per year
 Total fertility rate (TFR) stood at 4.7.


AIM: Zero population growth
Anti-natalist policy (1966-1982)
Policy Actions



INCENTIVES
Voluntary sterilisation
legalised
Benefits for sterilized
parents



Priority in primary
school registration
Reimbursement of
delivery fees
Liberalised abortion



DISINCENTIVES
Delivery fee increases
No paid maternity
leave for women on
the birth of their third
or subsequent child
Other factors


Double-digit growth in GDP was achieved in the
first eight years of nationhood.
Socio-economic development




predisposing factors for the adoption of family
planning
contributed to the country’s fertility decline
female labour-force participation rate 
Change in family structure


Nuclearisation of Singapore families
More living in public housing units
Policy Results

In 1975, replacement-level fertility was
reached. Smaller families, later marriages.
http://www.ipss.go.jp/webj-ad/WebJournal.files/population/2003_6/24.Yap.pdf
Policy Results
Policy Results
“When we adopted these policies they were manifestly right, enlightened and
the way forward to the future. With the advantage of blinding hindsight,
educating everybody, yes, absolutely right. Equal employment opportunities,
yes, but we shouldn't get our women into jobs where they cannot, at the
same time, be mothers…. You just can't be doing a full-time, heavy job
like that of a doctor or engineer and run a home and bring up children …
It is too late for us to reverse our policies and have our women go back to
their primary role as mothers, the creators and protectors of the next
generation. Our women will not stand for it. And anyway, they have already
become too important a factor in the economy.”
- then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, in his speech ‘Talent for the future’,
delivered on 14 August 1983
Eugenics phase (1983-1986)

Educational differential in fertility
Eugenics phase (1983-1986)

Graduate females
Marrying later or not at all
 Giving birth to less children

 Proportions
childless or with only one child tend to
increase with better education, rising from about
21 per cent among women with below secondary
education to 28 per cent among university
graduates.
Eugenics phase (1983-1986)

Intelligence genetically inherited?
If yes, intelligent produce less babies, less
inteligent produce more babies = lower quality
of workforce
 threaten Singapore’s ability in the long-term to
compete economically on the global stage.

 Then-Prime
Minister Lee Kwan Yew
The Great Marriage Debate

Higher educated women
(3 or more children)
 Tax relief
 Priority for primary school admission


Social Development Unit (1984)
“promotes marriage among single graduates.”
 http://www.lovebyte.org.sg/

The Great Marriage Debate

Discourage lesser-educated women to
have children

Sterlisation incentive of $10,000
 No
‘O’ levels, below age of 30
 Stop after 1st or 2nd child
 Penalty of repayment of same amount plus interest
if they should give birth to a third child
The Great Marriage Debate

Racial overtones



Separation of groups
for policy reasons
The government
worrying about a
change in racial
composition?
Chinese: most
educated sub-group
The Great Marriage Debate
UNPOPULAR!!!
Not surprisingly, the eugenics, racial and
discriminatory overtones of the policy
made it highly unpopular.
 The policy era quickly came to pass with a
significant loss of votes for the PAP
government at the General Election of
1984

Pro-natalist Policy (1987 – today)

“New Population Policy” in March 1987
Pro-natalist Policy (1987 – today)

Concerns

Rapidly aging population
of Singapore’s elderly comprising 25%
of the population by 2025, almost matching the
working age population which is predicted to stand
at 30% (Navaneetham, 2002:15)
 Projections
Pro-natalist Policy (1987 – today)



‘Have Three Or More Children If You Can Afford It’
Comprehensive package of benefits and policy changes
Extensive media campaign  immaterial benefits of
having children emphasised
Pro-natalist Policy (1987 – today)

Targets: married couples and unmarried singles.

‘Children – Life would be empty without them’
‘Life’s fun when you’re a dad and mum’,
‘The most precious gift you can give your child is a
brother or sister’



Unmarried singles were bombarded with
reminders not to leave out building a family while
climbing the career ladder

‘Why Build Your Career Alone? Family Life Helps’
‘Make Room for Love in Your Life
‘Life Would Be Lonely Without A Family’.


Policy Actions

Impact on many policy areas:





childcare, primary school registration, housing allocation, and
taxation
No-pay leave for childcare was extended from 1 to 4
years for women in the civil service,
SGD$10,000 cash handout for less-educated mothers
who underwent sterilization was removed.
Programs set up to discourage both sterilization and
abortion
Campaigns gradually shifted in focus from the ‘economic
burden’ of having children to the emphasis on the
immaterial joys that children bring.
Policy Results

The passing of the 1990s saw little
improvement in the fertility situation in
Singapore. On the contrary, Singapore’s
total fertility rate (TFR) had dropped from
1.96 in 1988 to 1.42 in 2001.
Baby bonus scheme (2000)
‘Children Development Co-Savings
Scheme’ (in short, the ‘Baby Bonus
Scheme’)
 ‘Third Child Paid Maternity Leave Scheme’
(called ‘3CML’)
 Baby Bonus highly controversial
 http://www.babybonus.gov.sg/bbss/html/in
dex.html

Baby bonus scheme (2000)
S$9000 for 2nd Child (US$5625)
 S$18000 for 3rd Child (US$11250)



Defray costs of raising children
Children Development Account (CDA)

Government matches dollar for dollar the
amount saved in the child’s account
 Max.
$6000 for 2nd child, $12000 for 3rd child,
money can be used on all children.
Baby bonus scheme (2000)
Public education campaigns
 Family Matters! Singapore committee


Aim: “reinforce the family as an institution in
Singapore by positioning family wellness and
unity as important life goals”, as well as to
“facilitate family formation (including
procreation) and to build a family-friendly
environment”
Baby bonus scheme (2000)



By 2002, S$11 million had been disbursed under
the Baby Bonus Scheme,
S$9 million under the Third Child Paid Maternity
Scheme (The Straits Times, 6 April 2002).
Given the monetary generosity of the scheme, it
is not surprising that when the TFR fell further,
hitting a historic low of 1.42 at the end of 2001

Met with disappointment, frustration, ‘national
problem’ with ‘grave’ implications for the economy
Baby bonus scheme (2000)

Ministry Community Development and Sports
announced a “new operating philosophy” (The
Straits Times, 12 April 2002) to promote familyfriendly workplaces


The Work-Life Unit, the Family-Friendly Firm Award
and the Employer Alliance on Work-Life
Civil Service took the lead in this direction, by
according marriage and paternity leaves and
allowing its agencies to adopt flexi-work
practices.
Romancing Singapore

Romancing Singapore campaign was launched
in 2003 with the aim of “help[ing] Singaporeans
recognise the importance of family life and,
hopefully, tie the knot” (The Straits Times, 7
October 2002)



Activities organized: free dance lessons and open-air
movie screenings in the park, with the website
providing an avenue for people to send each other ‘ecards’ to express their love.
Now the website is described as a “business portal”,
speed dating events etc.
Http://www.romancingsingapore.com/
Chocolate Fondue Affair
Romancing Singapore
Now they deny it… (FAQ from website)
 Is Romancing Singapore an initiative to
increase marriage rate and fertility
rate?
 Romancing Singapore initiatives only
providing the opportunities for the singles
to interact. The rest is entirely up to them.

Other policy actions

First-time flat buyers can rent flats while
waiting for their own flats to be built


Start families earlier
Tax rebates
parents with two to four children
 third and fourth child for employed mothers
with at least 3 or 4 O levels
 mother is below 31 years of age when she
gives birth to her second child

Other policy actions
Priority in housing allocation
 Ease of upgrade to larger flats for larger
families
 Facilitated primary school registration
 Compulsory counseling for couples with
only one or two children who wanted to get
sterilized or undergo abortions.

Role of wo/man
Women  ‘nurterers’, primary caregivers
 Man left out of the equation



Maternity leave with no male equivalent
23 years of discriminating against women
Cap on the number of women who can train
as doctors to one-third of the cohort
 ‘waste’ to train women who must eventually
leave the medical service to fulfill roles as
wives or mothers
 Abolished in Dec 2002

Role of wo/man

The 1990s have seen a turn to the
construction of a woman’s childbearing
role as her “national duty”
In conclusion
Cash incentives and tax reliefs
 Top-down approach



Do not work well!
Engage more civil society agents
Fertility and the Family: An Overview of Pro-natalist Population Policies in
Singapore by Theresa Wong, Brenda S.A. Yeoh
Bibliography
http://www.populationasia.org/Publications
/RP/AMCRP12.pdf
 http://www.ipss.go.jp/webjad/WebJournal.files/population/2003_6/24.
Yap.pdf
