Singaporeans in danger of extinction?

Source: The Sunday Times  25 Mar 2012

Singaporeans are in danger of disappearing by 2100 if they continue not having enough babies.

Dr Hans Rosling made that prediction as he said Singapore has yet to feel the brunt of declining fertility and a rapidly ageing society.

If the babies do not come, this place will just fill up with old people, he said, tossing up the numbers that tell the story.

With a total fertility rate (TFR) - or births per woman - of 1.2 last year, Singapore has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world.

Latest United Nations data puts Singapore's five-year average TFR at 1.37 for 2010 to 2015, compared with 2.57 in Malaysia, and 2.06 in Indonesia. Even Japan has a higher rate of 1.42 and South Korea, 1.39.

What it means is that by 2030, Singapore will have as many people above 75 years of age as young people below 15, and an ever shrinking number of young people will have to look after a growing number of elderly folk. (Askmelah's Note: it is puzzling then why we import so many immigrants in the last few years, adding to the looming aging problem to come in 20 years time. There must be something the Government knows that Dr. Rosling does not know, or is it a grave Government misstep? Another irony: "Declining birth rates and its impact on Singapore's population represents a "big challenge" facing the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) over the next decade, said Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen (Source)" this is probably the only country which faces a weird phenomenon where the population almost Double in 20 years time an yet the eligible NSers decline.)

That is when Singapore will really need immigrants, to fill up the gaps in the population and to keep the economy humming.

Dr Rosling, a sought-after international speaker and Swedish global health professor and public statistics advocate, was in Singapore earlier this month to give a talk.

He was not short of ideas to encourage Singapore women to have babies.

On a previous visit two years ago, he said gender equality was key to fixing the great baby shortage, couples deserved more than four months' paid maternity leave, and Singapore men had to get more involved in child-rearing.

Relying less on foreign maids would do wonders for getting husbands more involved in raising their families, he felt.

Adding to that list on his recent visit, he said the baby situation would improve if more was done to erase the stigma of divorce or being a single mother.

'Allow women to divorce, give them favourable conditions... and you will get more marriages and children,' he said, though he acknowledged that this might be controversial in a society with Asian values.

Recounting a recent conversation in Hong Kong with an unmarried, childless Asian woman in her 30s, he said: 'I asked her, do you not like children? She replied, 'Oh yes, I do. It's the idea of a husband that I don't like.''

As the laughter from his audience died down, Dr Rosling pointed out that Singapore is not the only country with a falling birth rate.

Across the globe, as countries mature, people are having fewer children. Many couples stop at two.

The result is that the number of children in the world has stopped growing.

'The world has hit 'peak child',' he said, noting that the number of children in the world has hit 1.9 billion today and will likely maintain or dip slightly below this level from now up to 2100.

'People think the global fertility rate is somewhere around 3.5 births per woman, but in reality, that number is 2.4 today.'

Dr Rosling also emphasised that - contrary to what some environmentalists say about population growth aggravating climate change - it is not a growing number of people that is the major concern.

Rather, growing resource constraints will come from the existing billions in developing countries rising to the wealth and consumption levels of the richest countries.

Arising from this is the threat of war as countries jostle for land and resources, and also increased poverty due to the rising prices of fuel, fertilisers and food.

He accused some environmentalists of pushing 'a toxic combination of arrogant and ignorant views of the world' by saying the world would cease functioning if Asia began using as much oil as Europe and the United States.

'Frankly, I can live without the polar bear,' he said. 'But I cannot bear the thought of one billion people dying from terrible famines and wars.'

He said the solution lay not in controlling population growth, but in changing the way people live.

The world has the ability to harness technology and produce more food with fewer resources to feed a growing population - but there must also be a change in lifestyles.

This includes getting people to eat less meat, consume fewer goods and buy products that have a minimal impact on the environment.

Clearly someone who loves children, Dr Rosling said: 'People use the term 'population explosion', which I find severely derogative - you are calling a loved child a bomb!'

Life is more meaningful with children, he added. People and governments must weigh the trade-offs when people choose to have fewer babies.

'What is it that makes a society choose a brand-new luxury car over one more child?' he asked.

HUMOROUS YET DEADLY SERIOUS

Dr Hans Rosling teaches global health at Sweden's Karolinska Institutet, which selects winners for the Nobel Prize in medicine, but is arguably more well-known for his humorous but 'deadly serious' lectures on statistics which he conducts worldwide and which are viewed by millions on the Web.

He co-founded the non-profit group Gapminder Foundation in 2005 with his son and daughter-in-law, which features a Trendalyser software that animates global development statistics, usually from the United Nations, to help people form a sharper view of the world. The software has since been acquired by tech giant Google.

He is married with three children and each has three children.

He was in Singapore earlier this month to give a lecture organised by the Royal Geographical Society.

Fewer babies despite more Singaporeans and PRs

---

Source: AsiaOne  Sun, Jun 12, 2011

37,967 babies were born in 2010, according to figures from the Department of Statistics.

This is the lowest number of births since 2005. Singapore's total fertility rate (TFR), which measures the average number of children a woman will have in her lifetime, also sank to a low of 1.16. (Askmelah's Note: It is the Tiger year effect, Stupid! You will see a surge again in 2012.)

This is despite the surge of immigrants of child-bearing age over the past ten years, reported The Straits Times today.

Singapore's racial balance is also gradually changing, noted demographers in The Straits Times report.

More Indian and 'Other' babies were born, and their proportion has been increasing every year since 2005.

Indian babies made up 11.3 per cent of births - an increase from 9.8 per cent five years ago. Indians also made up a higher percentage of the population (9.2 per cent), as compared to a decade ago (7.9 per cent), reported The Straits Times.

In contrast, Chinese and Malay births show a downward trend. Chinese babies made up 61.4 per cent of the babies born in Singapore last year, down from 64.8 per cent the year before. Malay babies made up 15 per cent of births in 2010, down from 17.4 per cent in 2006.

Money talks when S’pore women say ‘I love you’

Source: Straits Times, 15 June 2011   June 15th, 2011

BLAME the material girl for Singapore’s baby woes.

Cupid and the stork had no luck last year, with the number of marriages and babies born dipping to yet another record low.

New research by Singapore Management University (SMU) psychology professor Norman Li could shed some light on Singapore’s ever-shrinking birth rate. His study, published earlier this year, shows that Singaporean women are ’significantly’ more materialistic than their American peers.

When it comes to looking for a potential spouse, the top criterion for Singaporean women is a man’s social status. Next on the list is kindness, followed by a lively personality. In contrast, American women value kindness the most, followed by looks, then a man’s social standing.

Prof Li did not ask his subjects for their reasons but said he is not surprised by the finding. ‘Maybe Singaporean women are just being realistic. Here, you need a lot of money to survive and afford an affluent lifestyle. Maybe they are just being practical,’ he said.

He and his associates surveyed about 400 psychology students aged between 19 and 21, studying at the SMU and the Northern Illinois University near Chicago in the United States, on their attitudes towards marriage, children and preferences when it comes to choosing a partner.

The study found no major differences when it comes to men: Both American and Singaporean men went for looks first. The second most important trait in a spouse for men was kindness and the third was a lively personality.

‘Men are wired to go for looks,’ he explained, adding that a woman’s physical attractiveness is a visual cue for fertility. Features such as ’soft skin, full-looking lips and colourful cheeks’ are not just attractive, but also associated with youth, which indicates a woman’s fertility. That is why men tend to go for younger women, he explained.

Prof Li, a 45-year-old American-born Chinese, knows this first-hand. His American wife, Ruth, is 21 years his junior. Mrs Li, now a housewife, was his student when he was lecturing at the University of Texas at Austin before he came to Singapore in 2008. They have a two-year-old son, Jasper.

His research also showed that the pursuit of material success is at odds with the desire to settle down and have babies. ‘Lots of past research have shown that the more materialistic you are, the less you place value on having friends and family,’ he said.

It’s a simple trade-off, he added. We have only so much time and energy, and chasing one goal means giving up another ideal.

Another possible factor has to do with one’s source for fulfilment, whether it is strong family ties or material success. He said: ‘If you have good relationships, you may not need to value material things because you already feel good.’

However, he noted that research has not determined which comes first: ‘Do people pursue material goals and then abandon friends and family, or is it because they are no good at having friends and family and so they make up for it by grabbing onto material things?’

He said he decided to study Singapore’s baby woes from a psychological perspective after learning that it was an utmost national concern. By and large, he noted, wealthier countries tend to have lower birth rates. Yet ’significant differences’ still occur among countries which enjoy similar levels of economic development, he said.

That is why he decided to compare Singapore and the US. Singapore ranks ninth out of 229 countries, while the US takes the 10th place, in terms of per capita gross domestic product, according to the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook.

Yet the US’ total fertility rate (TFR) at 2.05 in 2009 was almost double Singapore’s rate of 1.22. Last year, Singapore’s TFR, which measures the average number of children a woman will bear in her lifetime, sank to a historic low of 1.16.

Only 37,967 babies were born last year, the lowest number since 2005 when Singapore saw 37,492 births, despite the surge in the number of new citizens and permanent residents in recent years. And only 24,363 couples tied the knot last year – the lowest since 2007, when 23,966 couples wed.

In a Family Research Network forum presentation on singlehood at the National University of Singapore last month, Prof Li pointed out that Singaporeans – both men and women – are ’significantly’ less satisfied with life than Americans.

Americans scored an average of five, while Singaporeans came in at 4.38 in his study. The closer the score is to seven, the more satisfied with life the respondents are. Singaporean women were also found to be ’significantly’ more materialistic than American women. They polled an average of 3.98, compared to the American women’s score of 3.74. The closer the score is to five, the more materialistic one is deemed to be.

While the study did not ask respondents for the reasons behind their answers, Prof Li feels that the relentless rat race and high cost of living are possible reasons Singaporeans are less happy with life and are more inclined to go after money and success.

While it is expensive to live in major US cities such as New York or Los Angeles, there are plenty of places in the US to ‘live comfortably’ for a lot less money than in Singapore. ‘It’s not that hard to buy a house and car in the US,’ he said.

Besides, with the globalised economy and outsourcing, Singaporeans are vulnerable to losing their jobs to a foreigner any time. ‘People can’t really relax. Can you really get to the point where you feel comfortable? People just don’t get to that point any more,’ he noted.

Also, Singaporeans, like other Asians, tend to worry more about life than Westerners, who are ‘more relaxed’ and more comfortable with facing the unknown.

‘I think you have to work really hard and succeed before you can relax here,’ he said. ‘On average, people in the West are able to enjoy life as they go along. They are not going to kill themselves to succeed.’

So what is the bottom line?

He pronounced: ‘Materialism is a double-edged sword.’ While materialistic values spur the economy to greater heights, they dampens people’s desire for family and children.

His research shows that people who are less satisfied with life and value material success more are less likely to view marriage and procreation ‘favourably’. For career-minded women, having children – or more children for that matter – is a drain on their time and resources.

With more women taking on high-flying jobs and their expectations of their partners rising as their own earning power soars, he reckoned getting the dismal birth rate up will be ‘very, very difficult’ unless a shift in values away from materialism towards more pro-family values occurs.

But beyond saying that more monetary incentives are unlikely to spur the stork to visit more often, he refused to delve further into pro-natal incentives that will work, insisting that is not his area.

His research mainly explores ‘what do people really look for in mates’ and the science of attraction, love and lust in people, he maintained.

So has knowing all about women’s psyche helped in his own pursuit of happiness? Prof Li is the first to admit he has had ‘mixed success’ and made ‘lots of mistakes’ in his love life, despite his vast research on the topic. His first marriage, to a former postgraduate course mate, broke down after four years due to ‘different values’.

‘There’s a difference between knowing what you should do and doing it. Doing it is not always easy,’ he said. ‘I’m reasonably confident that I can tell when someone is interested in me. I can generally interest someone who might be interested in me but I could use more work in the relationship maintenance department.’ – ST

Religion - The key to pro-creation?

Baby steps in procreation

By Ong Soh Chin, Senior Writer

Source: The Straits Times, 03 Feb 2011

AS A Singaporean who just managed to scrape past the post-65 demographic gate, I am old enough to remember vividly the Singapura before the economic miracle, yet young enough to have been able to enjoy all the spoils of my country's remarkable transformation.

And enjoy them, I have.

My peers and I have benefited from a good education and good career opportunities that have kept us engaged intellectually and socially, both at home and overseas.

We have traversed the world for work and play, as one would catch a bus; while a generation ago, some of our parents regarded each plane trip as a rare pilgrimage.

We have dined on food fit for emperors; while a generation ago, some of our parents regarded rice and soya sauce as luxuries. We have also pretty much missed the boat on having babies.

There are those who would sniff at my demographic - the single, older and childless woman - as an aberration of all that is good in nature. They say we are, among other things, selfish, self-centred and narcissistic.

I agree with them.

But who could blame us for being so? Mine was the first generation to really taste the first fruits of progress, and it has been a heady addiction that has fed the growth of the country. The fact that Singapore has so many successful and independent women, childless or not, married or otherwise, is a shining testament to Singapore Inc.

We could not have been luckier or more grateful. And we would not have had it any other way.

In the meantime, however, our country's birth rate has been falling as steadily as Raddy Avramovic's chances of winning a Coach Of The Year award.

My peers and I have watched - with varying degrees of disgruntlement over the years - the ongoing state policies of incentivising young, married couples to have more babies.

We have also watched - with emotions vacillating from despair, disaffection and smugness - as these policies have largely fallen on deaf wombs.

The usual reasons have been trotted out - the high cost of living, the pressure-cooker environment, the lack of time, the unaffordability of housing.

But, at the same time, there is a queasy realisation that these cannot be the real reasons. If so, people in impoverished countries would not be breeding at the rate they are. There is arguably no greater pressure than the realisation that you may not be able to feed and clothe your family.

Fear, however, can be a powerful demotivator and disincentive to procreate. I don't mean fear of the 'will I be able to afford my child's education?' variety. But the giant psychical fear existing in the subconscious that we may not be here for very long.

As a barely post-65 Singaporean, it is deeply embedded in my DNA that our nation has been a miraculous freak of nature, coming into being by sheer force of will, riding perilously, but deftly, on the tsunami waves of change rippling across the region.

It is a chord that is still being sounded today. We must not take Singapore for granted. All that we have today may not be here tomorrow. We have enemies that are just waiting for us to fail. We are an 80-storey building on marshy land.

These are hard truths. And Singaporeans, being ever the pragmatic kiasi lot, may have imbibed them a little too enthusiastically on the conscious, as well as subconscious, level. If all that we know and love may not even be here tomorrow, why bother having children today?

There is one demographic that appears to be bucking the trend, however. Recently, The Straits Times featured several graduate couples who were choosing to have big families of as many as seven children. Their one unifying thread? Religious values. Religion promises life eternal and a greater reward for believers and their issue after they have shrugged off this mortal passport.

But are Singaporeans who choose to keep the faith in other ways doomed to extinction? In the interests of public morale, and as a responsible, law-abiding, tax-paying, agnostic and ultimately hopeful citizen, I say no. Because there are other avenues that have yet to be explored.

Some of my peers - single and married - would love to become mothers, now that they are financially stable and emotionally mature. But they may not be able to do it the natural way.

Singapore has never failed to rise to the challenge, even if it has meant making tough decisions. Its population may be ageing, but it is also healthier and living longer than ever before.

If we are being encouraged to work past the current retirement age of 62 - it will be 65 in January next year and possibly up to 68 later on - who is to say that older women cannot be fit and able mothers?

The only thing against us, really, is biology. And a certain measure of public resistance, perhaps, to unconventional solutions that explore, encourage and support adoption and surrogacy options.

We may or may not be looking at an opportunity to reverse the trend. But at the very least, it may be worth a shot.

After all, the obstacles to solving our baby problem may not just be nature, but our own man-made inflexibilities.

The need for Pro-Family infrastructure.... Sadly is lacking

Earlier closing hours at childcare centre leave mum in a bind

Letter from Esther Tan

Source: Todayonline  Apr 20, 2011

I AM working full-time and my husband is currently on a long-term overseas working stint. My official working hours end at 6.30pm and I usually take about an hour via public transport to get from Raffles Place to Sengkang to pick my son up from his childcare centre every day, while my mother helps to take care of my 17-month-old daughter at home.

At first, this arrangement suited me as the childcare centre closed at 9pm. Two years ago, they changed this to 8pm, and then they adjusted it again last year to 7.30pm. 

I was alarmed by the new timing as this meant I could not afford any unexpected delays or mishaps. I had to brave the crazy rush-hour traffic with my heart in my mouth, praying I would not be late to pick up my son or else I would be fined.

The final bombshell came last month, when the centre issued a notice to say they would adjust the closing time to 7pm with effect from June 1 this year in accordance with stipulations by the Ministry for Community Development, Youth and Sports. I was shocked - no way am I going to be able to make the trip in half an hour.

I do not have anyone else to rely on to pick up my son, and I have already tried calling other childcare centres to seek a place for him, to no avail. 

As most of the centres were full as of March, I can only be on the waiting list. I am near to desperation for an alternative. Where can I seek help? 

   

Closing time for childcare centres not mandated beyond 7pm

Letter from Musa Fazal Director, Child Care Division, MCYS

Source: Todayonline Apr 25, 2011

  

I REFER to the letters from Ms Esther Tan ("Earlier closing hours at child care centre leave mum in a bind") and Ms Shirlene Sim ("Childcare a hassle for parents in CBD") on April 20 and 21 respectively.

The MCYS recognises the demands working parents face and their need for accessible childcare arrangements. We work with relevant agencies to provide suitable premises for the setting up of child care centres at different locations around Singapore. We also provide funding so as to lower the cost of child care to parents.

Childcare centres in Singapore are required to commence daily operations by 7am and close not earlier than 7pm. Today, some 115 centres offer extended operating hours beyond the minimum requirement, including 24 centres that operate up to 8pm and eight centres that operate up to 9pm. 

Parents can search for child care centres most suited to their needs from our Child Care Link website, www.childcarelink.gov.sg.

In assessing whether to extend the operating hours, individual child care centres take into account factors such as the demand for such services. Making it mandatory for all child care centres to extend operating hours beyond 7pm will make it difficult for some child care centres to be viable.

This may in turn reduce the supply of child care centres. It could also raise cost, and make childcare less affordable for parents. 

We thank Ms Tan and Ms Sim for their feedback. The MCYS will continue to work towards making child care more accessible for working parents.

It's not about the money ...

Source: Todayonline 20 Feb 2012

Solutions to fertility woes could focus on the workplace, given limited impact of Baby Bonus Scheme

Money, it seems, has had little or no impact in getting Singaporeans to have more babies: Almost S$2 billion in Baby Bonuses have been given out since the scheme started in 2001. The falling birth rate, however, has yet to be reversed.

Now, the focus appears to have shifted to the workplace, as policy makers continue to rack their brains over the solution to Singapore's low birth rate.

Despite the urgency of the problem, the absence of any enhancements to the Baby Bonus Scheme in last Friday's Budget - the last time the scheme was enhanced was in 2008 - has led some to question if the scheme has outlived its usefulness. (read more)