Author: Gerald Giam

Gerald Giam is the Member of Parliament for Aljunied GRC. He is the Head of Policy Research of the Workers' Party of Singapore. The opinions expressed on this page are his alone.

The Elected Presidency and future non-PAP govts

The debate about the relevance of the Elected Presidency (EP) came up again on October 21 in Parliament. With new framework to tap investment income from the reserves, the PAP government has given the Elected President additional duties; most significantly, approving the Finance Minister’s formula for determining the expected long-term real rates of return of Singapore’s reserves at the start of each financial year.

This formula is not made known to the public and could be changed each year. The only safeguard is the President and his Council of Advisors.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, on learning that the Workers’ Party (WP) voted in support of the constitutional amendment, took the opportunity to prod them to change their stand on the EP.

The WP’s original stand was made clear in the party’s Manifesto, released before the 2006 election. The WP opposes the EP because they feel it will take away the power of Parliament as the people’s representatives.

The EP was introduced by the PAP government ostensibly as a “second key” to the nation’s reserves and a safeguard against the irresponsible appointment of key civil servants.

The Elected President has much greater powers than most Singaporeans are probably aware of. According to the Singapore Constitution, the President may, at his discretion:

a. Appoint the Prime Minister (Article 25);

b. Veto the government’s choice of Chief Justice and Supreme Court judges, Attorney-General, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Chief of Defence Force, Chiefs of the Air Force, Army and Navy, Commissioner of Police, Director of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), statutory board chairmen and members, Chairman of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and many other key public service appointments (Article 22);

c. Veto the appointment or removal of directors or CEOs of Government companies, namely, Temasek Holdings, GIC and MND Holdings (Article 22C);

d. Veto a request to dissolve Parliament, which is a prerequisite for calling elections (Article 21);

e. Veto any proposed legislation that curtails his own powers (Article 22H);

f. Veto the budgets of statutory boards (Article 22B);

g. Approve the CPIB Director’s request to commence a corruption investigation against anyone, even if the Prime Minister refuses (Article 22G).

In the case of (b) and (c) above, the presidential veto can be overridden with a two-thirds majority vote by Parliament.

Given the powers of an Elected President, it is no wonder that WP chief Low Thia Khiang argued in Parliament that “the office of the Elected President could be potentially crippling for a non-PAP government”.

However this is the most likely reason why the PAP government introduced the EP in the first place. Surely they do not see a need to check themselves!

Furthermore, the very strict criteria for standing for election as President would, as Mr Low put it, mean presidents would likely come from the PAP Establishment.

Let’s examine the qualifications for Presidential candidates (Article 19):

a. Has been, for at least 3 years, a Minister, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General, Chairman of the PSC, Auditor-General, Accountant-General, Permanent Secretary, statutory board chairman or CEO, chairman or CEO of a $100 million dollar Singapore-registered company.

b. Satisfies the Presidential Elections Committee that he is a person of integrity, good character and reputation;

For (a) above, almost all qualified persons are current or former government appointees. And there are very few $100 million Singapore-registered companies which are not Government companies or their subsidiaries.

Who are the members of the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC)? Basically “three wise men”: The PSC chairman, chairman of the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) and a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. All these are government appointees (albeit some requiring presidential consent).

So, in summary, the field of candidates is limited to mainly government appointees. If that fails to throw up a candidate that satisfies the government, a government-appointed committee can make a subjective judgment call on who can run for president.

This played out almost exactly in the 2005 presidential election, when Andrew Kuan was disqualified by the PEC on grounds that as former Group Chief Financial Officer of the $1.9 billion JTC Corporation, his seniority and responsibility was “not comparable to those mentioned in the Constitution”.

Scenario: Opposition wins election

Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

An opposition coalition wins 51% of the seats in Parliament in the 2016 elections, way short of a two-thirds majority. The presidential election is not due until 2017. Therefore the Elected President is still the previous PAP government’s choice.

Come the August 2017 presidential election, the “three wise men” of the PEC are still in office, and cannot be removed without the approval of the sitting President. And so the field of candidates for the Presidency are still the PAP’s choices, and the choice of the President is a foregone conclusion at least until the 2023 presidential election.

This President exercises all the powers mentioned earlier, blocking appointments, including key security appointments of that of the Chief of Defence Force, Chief of Army and Commissioner of Police. Because the new government does not enjoy a two-thirds majority, it will be unable to override the President’s veto and will be forced to appoint the President’s preferred generals.

Even after 2023, seven years after the PAP has lost power, it may still be able to exercise its “third key”. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was quoted by Reuters on 16 September 2006, saying: “Without the Elected President and if there is a freak result, within two or three years, the army would have to come in and stop it.”

The most obvious implication of MM Lee’s statement is a threat of a military coup. But even without a coup, the presence of rebellious generals and police commissioners could be enough to destabilize the government and scare away investors.

Added to an uncooperative or adversarial Attorney-General, Chief Justice, Auditor-General and CPIB Director, the new government could be utterly crippled, not unlike the situation in Thailand right now.

For ordinary citizens who are not fully aware of the political manoeuvring behind the scenes, what they will see is a paralyzed government, incapable of getting anything done. They will yearn to “return to Egypt”, or the days when the PAP was in charge. By the 2021 or 2026 election, they will vote back the PAP into power and Singapore will be back to square one (less of course Lee Kuan Yew, for better or for worse).

Of course, the above scenario is an extreme example. If the PAP really had the country’s interests at heart, they would not paralyze the government after losing an election. But one can never predict how political parties will act, given that their foremost objective is to gain or retain power.

To keep or abolish?

Therefore, I am inclined to agree with the WP that the EP, in its current setup, is unsatisfactory.

However, I will stop short of calling for its complete abolition. In principle, a directly elected Head of State would enhance democratic accountability of Parliament to the people. What I feel should be abolished is the artificially stringent qualification criteria for President.

The US Presidential candidate needs only to be born in the US, be at least 35 years old and have lived in the US for at least 14 of those years. In addition, there is a two-term limit and the Senate (the upper house of Parliament) can disqualify impeached and convicted individuals from running for President.

If the most important position in the world can be left to a democratic vote by citizens, I don’t see why Singapore cannot do the same. In any case, the Elected President maintains only custodial, not executive powers.

Therefore I would like to suggest that we keep the EP, but the qualification criteria should include:

a. Born or naturalised citizen;

b. Lived in Singapore for at least 35 years;

c. Has not held the office of President for more than one term;

d. Is subject to the qualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 44)

e. Is not subject to any of the disqualifications as a Member of Parliament (Article 45);

f. Has not been a member of any political party for three years leading to the date of his nomination for election.

My main rationale for (f) is to try to minimize the number of politically-aligned candidates, since the President is expected to make decisions without favouring any political party.

I have deliberately excluded any criteria for financial knowledge, even though a large portion of the President’s duties pertain to financial oversight. I would expect the candidates themselves to prove to the electorate their financial competence, and scrutinize each others’ records.

In essence, this relatively thin criteria is not to lower the bar, but to subject the candidates to the electorate’s scrutiny, instead of members of the Establishment. With an educated and world-aware electorate, I trust the “wisdom of crowds” to make the right decision.

This proposal is a work in progress. I hope readers can discuss this and offer counter-suggestions. If there is sufficient interest among readers, I will write another article to discuss my rationale for the other proposed criteria, and possibly include amendments based on feedback.

This article was first published on The Online Citizen.

Obama’s foreign policy proposals

I support Barack Obama but not simply because it’s the “in” thing. As a non-American whose country is greatly affected by US foreign policy, my main reason for rooting for him is because I believe he presents much better foreign policy proposals than John McCain. I particularly like his focus on diplomacy first. This is not going soft on America’s enemies. This is fighting smart. Extending America’s “soft power” would do much more to overcome terrorists and other enemies of the US than military power ever could.

The Obama campaign has done a good compilation of all his speeches where he outlined his foreign policy visions. Take a look.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnqrl_aZfPI&hl=en&fs=1]

Now who is the pork barrel champion?

It has become a familiar pattern. Whenever PAP leaders want to emphasize a point about how wise and capable they are, they cite negative examples from other countries and contrast it with Singapore.

Tuesday in Parliament was no different. Despite the PAP itself inching closer to the sacred kitty (i.e., the reserves) by increasing the proportion of investment income the government can use, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong gave a long speech about how important it is to safeguard the reserves from “pork barrel” spending.

Of course, he was not referring to pork barrel spending by the ever-prudent PAP. He was implying that if Singaporeans elected any opposition party into power, that party would exhaust all our hard-earned reserves.

Mr Lee cited the examples of Norway and Australia, which according to him both came under populist pressure to spend their reserves during the heat of elections.

In Australia, he said, candidates John Howard and Kevin Rudd had promised multi-billion dollar packages if elected, so much so that major newspapers started a “pork-o-meter” to keep track of the cost of campaign promises.

In Norway, Parliamentarians set the rules then subsequently “broke the rules” on spending caps on their reserves.

I wonder why the PM decided to stick his foot in his mouth when Parliament had already voted unanimously for his government’s proposed spending increase.

Did he not realise he sounded a tad hypocritical?

Since the 1991 election, the PAP has used pork barrel promises in the form of HDB upgrading to further its political objectives. It declared that it is completely justified in upgrading the flats of constituencies that voted for them, and bumping opposition held wards to the end of the queue — a truly non sequitur kind of logic.

In the last election, Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong promised $180 million to upgrade Hougang and Potong Pasir flats, without even thinking through how the government was going to fund that spending, as he admitted months later.

How about the $2.6 billion “Progress Package” dished out days before Polling Day? Does that smell porky enough?

It is amusing that he cited Australia as a negative example. Kevin Rudd actually proposed less spending than John Howard — and won.

The newspapers came up with a “pork-o-meter”. Well at least they were educating citizens about politicians’ populist proposals. I don’t recall our local papers pointing out that selective upgrading promises were pork barrel spending, or that election cash giveaways could be considered vote-buying in many developed countries.

Govt should play bigger role in managing price increases

On 11 October, The Straits Times Insight section discussed proposed changes to the Constitution to allow the Government to tap more of the returns from investing the reserves. The ST asked readers what they thought of the plan and what concerns they had about the changes.

A friend of mine wrote in, but the editor left out some of the important points he wanted to get across. Here is the full version which I obtained from him. The text in red were the omitted parts.

The government should play a more positive and active role in managing all the price increases that have been coming up since the end of the first quarter of 2008.  I believe Singapore based monopolies and especially those that are government linked have taken advantage with all the increases that have and are affecting the common man in the street.

It can be easily observed that all this started since the end of the first quarter 2008 euphoria, of a healthy economy.  There has been no let down.  This is compounded with the highest inflation rate Singapore is experiencing now.

The financial meltdown has only escalated and enhanced this.  To blame it all on the financial meltdown would be naïve as the government is in control of all the other increases that have been shoved down the common man.

Every time a price increase is announced the government announces a relief package.  Why don’t we go back to the source?  Prevention is better than cure.

Ajit Singh Nagpal

Three major US newspapers endorse Obama

It’s an interesting feature in US politics. As polling day approaches, newspapers will publish an editorial endorsing one of the candidates.

CNN reported that the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune have endorsed Barack Obama as their choice for President of the United States.

Here are snippets of what they had to say about the rationale behind their choice.

Washington Post:

…it is without ambivalence that we endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.

The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain’s disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president.

Mr. Obama’s temperament is unlike anything we’ve seen on the national stage in many years. He is deliberate but not indecisive; eloquent but a master of substance and detail; preternaturally confident but eager to hear opposing points of view. He has inspired millions of voters of diverse ages and races, no small thing in our often divided and cynical country. We think he is the right man for a perilous moment.

Los Angeles Times:

We need a leader who demonstrates thoughtful calm and grace under pressure, one not prone to volatile gesture or capricious pronouncement. We need a leader well-grounded in the intellectual and legal foundations of American freedom. Yet we ask that the same person also possess the spark and passion to inspire the best within us: creativity, generosity and a fierce defense of justice and liberty.

Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that’s the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain’s judgment.

Obama’s selection also was telling. He might have scored a steeper bump in the polls by making a more dramatic choice than the capable and experienced Joe Biden. But for all the excitement of his own candidacy, Obama has offered more competence than drama.

We may marvel that Obama’s critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.

Chicago Tribune:

On Dec. 6, 2006, this page encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign. We wrote that he would celebrate our common values instead of exaggerate our differences. We said he would raise the tone of the campaign. We said his intellectual depth would sharpen the policy debate. In the ensuing 22 months he has done just that.

This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party’s nominee for president.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate–but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin’s exposure to the public. But it’s clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment’s notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate–he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn’t bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

We do, though, think Obama would govern as much more of a pragmatic centrist than many people expect.

He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation’s most powerful office, he will prove it wasn’t so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama’s name to Lincoln’s in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

$1 billion profit, so electricity tariffs raised 22%

SP Services has announced that it has raised electricity tariffs 21.89% from 1 Oct to 31 Dec 2008. The Online Citizen’s Leong Sze Hian has pointed out that SP Services’ parent company, Singapore Power Ltd, made a profit of $1.086 billion in 2007. I checked out their website and indeed this is true.

They made over $1 billion in PROFITS and they are increasing tariffs by 22%! And all this when oil prices are actually decreasing.

Of course, since it is not useful for our power companies to use the current oil prices to justify the increase, they are using the “forward fuel oil price”. This is the price agreed between the buyer and the seller for delivery of the oil at a specified future date, in this case 3 months.

As with the Public Transport Council (PTC) and ministerial salaries, the Energy Market Authority (EMA) is using this ridiculous formula to justify price increases.

It’s really shocking how the EMA has gone to the hilt to defend the price increases of the company they are supposed to regulate. But on closer examination, it’s not all that surprising:

– Singapore Power made $1 billion in 2007, much of it from Singaporeans’ electricity fees.

– SP is in turn 100% owned by Temasek Holdings (as are the two other power companies, PowerSeraya and Senoko Power).

– Temasek Holdings is owned by the Ministry of Finance.

– EMA, the energy market regulator, is a statutory board under the Ministry of Trade and Industry (as is the Competition Commission of Singapore, which is supposed to prevent cartel-like behaviour).

I think everyone is having a jolly good back scratch, except us ordinary citizens.

Something is seriously amiss when a power company can make $1 billion in profits and still raise charges by 22%. It is a classic example of the profit-driven culture that our government is run on. I really don’t know how much longer Singaporeans are going to stand for this kind of nonsense.
.d
.

Passing of JBJ

Former opposition MP & former Secretary-General of the Workers’ Party, Mr JB Jeyaretnam has died early this morning from heart failure.

I am so sad to hear of the passing of Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, also known as JBJ. JBJ fought his whole life to bring change to Singapore. All he received from the Government were lawsuits, partisan vitriol and a smearing of his name. Most Singaporeans, especially younger Singaporeans, had no idea what he has contributed to the country. They think he was a crazy man who just opposed for opposition’s sake. That was definitely not the case. If you read his book of parliamentary speeches, you will see countless excellent suggestions that he raised to benefit Singapore, but were simply shot down or dismissed by the ruling party.

Last night I was meeting with a bunch of friends. We were just talking about JBJ. One of my friends remarked that Singapore may not have been kind to JBJ while he was alive, but history will record that JBJ was the man that started the reform of Singapore’s political system.

Our children will thank JBJ for his contributions. I am truly grateful.

Rest in peace in the arms of the Father, Mr JBJ.

.

Don’t be a stupid cupid

This is the first of a two-part series in response to the marriage and parenthood package announced by the Prime Minister in his National Day Rally speech 2008. It was first published on The Online Citizen.

In his National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced a slew of measures to increase Singapore’s fertility rate. It was the second time since taking over as prime minister in 2004 that he had sought to tackle this pressing national issue, which has often been cited as the most critical issue facing our young but ageing nation.

Mr Lee explained the two-pronged approach to reversing the trend of low birth rates: Firstly, encouraging people to get married, and secondly, encouraging couples to have children.

Earlier intervention needed

It appears that the Government’s solution to the problem of young people not getting married or marrying too late is merely a tweaking of the same approach that has delivered limited success so far, that is, to fund the matchmakers.

The marriage problem in Singapore is three-fold: Firstly, people putting off marriage until too late; Secondly, society’s attitudes towards marriage, and thirdly, higher divorce rates.

When couples get married too late, they will often have more difficulty conceiving. Many may give up trying and simply opt not to have kids. The issue of older, educated women not getting married is well known and needs no further explaining.

To tackle the problem of late marriages or no marriages, we need to focus on not just singles in their 30s, but also younger people in their late teens and early 20s.

Once people leave school or university, their casual social circle tends to shrink dramatically. The uphill task of finding a partner begins from the first day of work. Therefore if the government really wants to throw money at the problem, it should consider funding matchmaking programmes directed at university-age students. This is a group that most private matchmaking agencies will likely avoid as they don’t have as much disposable income as older singles.

Even pre-university students could be beneficiaries of programmes encouraging marriage. I do not advocate matchmaking for teenagers, but there could be more programmes advising students on how to prepare oneself to be a more ideal partner in future. These programmes could cover issues like respecting oneself and the opposite sex, encouraging abstinence before marriage, healthy sexual behaviour, financial management, and grooming and etiquette, among others.

Mindset changes

Society’s attitudes towards marriage have also changed since a generation ago. Nowadays, young people no longer see marriage as critical to leading a fulfilling life. Alternative lifestyles abound and young people have many other life options to choose from. It doesn’t help that the media often portrays being married and having children as signing away one’s individual freedom.

Parents and society also need to change their mindsets that young people should wait until they have graduated and are settled in a well-paying job before considering marriage.

Too often, the excuse for not getting married is simply that it costs too much. If couples are prepared to have simple wedding ceremonies and live simply in the first few years of their marriage, it is actually quite affordable to get married.

The role of religion

The PM did not mention the critical role religion plays in getting people hitched and having kids. All the major religions in Singapore strongly encourage marriage and childbearing. Many couples met each other in church or other houses of worship.

While it would be a stretch to suggest that the Government should fund faith-based programmes that promote marriage and parenthood, this is an angle that policymakers should not overlook, given that 85% of Singaporeans have their worldviews shaped by religion.

Reducing divorces

The divorce rate in Singapore has been rising with each successive year. For couples who divorce before bearing children, this further delays childbearing or causes many to completely abandon any plans to have kids.

An increasing divorce rate has a knock-on effect on younger Singaporeans. As broken marriages become more pervasive in society, it could put off other people from getting married in the first place as they would increasingly question whether marriage is really worth the trouble and heartache.

To reduce the number of unhappy marriages in Singapore, our society needs to urgently look into this problem.

Summary

There is no silver bullet that can encourage people to get married earlier, and it is definitely not something the Government can or should do alone. It will require a national effort led by, most importantly, singles themselves, but with assistance from non-government organisations and religious institutions in partnership with the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports.

.

The stork is still not quite convinced

Among the goodies to be doled out by the government to encourage couples to have more kids are an additional one month of paid maternity leave, increased Baby Bonus and childcare subsidies, and more tax rebates for working mothers.

I welcome the new measures announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. I have to confess that I am an interested party — my wife is due to give birth to our first child in two weeks and we stand to benefit from these new procreation measures. (In case you are wondering, I was not one of those who petitioned the government to bring forward the effective date of these benefits.)

However the financial benefits were hardly factor in us choosing to have children. The reason is simple: Raising a child costs much, much more than any benefits the government can afford to give us. If we had decided to have kids based on the government’s financial incentives, we would have gotten an ‘F’ for our Cost-Benefit Analysis 101 class.

If the government is hoping that the $1.6 billion they are setting aside annually for these benefits is going to increase the fertility rate by much, they are sorely mistaken.

As PM Lee pointed out himself, we are up against very powerful cultural forces working against childbearing. Greater career opportunities, a love for self-serving pleasure, a distaste for doing hands-on work, and the negative portrayal of the traditional family by the media all relegate childbearing to the bottom of the totem pole of priorities in a typical young couple’s mind.

The government needs to tackle the problem at its roots, rather than simply treat its symptoms.

In broad terms, this means investing money and resources into changing young Singaporeans’ mindsets. For example, the state could fund more programmes in the mass media that promote the joys of marriage and parenting. Or it could also fund organisations like Focus on the Family or Centre for Fathering to help them do what they do best.

It will not be easy, and it brings great risks of being accused of being a nanny state. While we may balk at any attempts at social engineering, the serious problem of low birth rates demands serious interventions. The alternative, of course, is to import more foreigners and end up becoming like Gulf emirates Qatar and Dubai where foreign talent makes up the majority of the population.

Non-traditional babies

Singapore also needs to look into nurturing babies from “non-traditional” sources.

Single mothers are an undeniable part of our social landscape. While I believe it is a mistake to have sex and get oneself pregnant before marriage, I also realise that for pregnant single mothers, that mistake has already been made. There is no point punishing the mother further — I don’t believe anyone is foolish enough to set out planning to be an unwed mother. Raising kids is hard enough with two parents, what more with just one?

More importantly, it is unconscionable to punish an innocent, unborn child for his or her parents’ sin by denying the child the benefits and the head start that other children receive.

Therefore I believe that single mothers should receive the same maternity and employment benefits as married mothers. This was an excellent point that was raised by Ms Lee Lilian at the Workers’ Party’s YouthQuake event recently. To do so will not only give her child a more equal start to life, but more importantly could encourage more single mothers to keep their babies instead of taking the easy way out by aborting their babies.

Reduce abortions, please

There are over 12,000 abortions carried out each year in Singapore. Almost a quarter of all pregnancies in Singapore are terminated. Over 60% of abortions are performed on married women. The moral ramifications of this crime against unborn humanity are far reaching and fearful to consider.

Even if one does not believe in the sanctity of an unborn human being, consider that if all pregnancies in Singapore were carried to term, our birth shortfall from the replacement level will be more than halved. Currently Singaporeans are about 23,000 births short of replacing themselves.

We need to do more — much more — to reduce the staggering abortion rate in Singapore. For a start, we need to strongly restrict the use of on-demand abortion as a method of contraception for married women. This was based on an extremely liberal and cold-blooded approach to population control in Singapore during the 1970s and has no place in baby-scarce 21st century Singapore.

Married women should be strongly discouraged — even prevented — from having an abortion without any good reason.

But what are we going to do with all these unwanted babies?

Firstly, I believe parental instincts will kick in once the baby is born, so abandonment should not be an issue.

Secondly, for single mothers who are unable or unwilling to look after their own children, there needs to be a better system for giving up babies for adoption, and for adopting local-born babies. Currently the system is so onerous that couples who wish to adopt prefer to adopt from orphanages in China than from their fellow Singaporeans.

Thirdly, the social sector needs to be expanded for more children’s homes to look after kids who are not able to get adopted out. It may sound cruel to have a child born into an orphanage, but I believe that every life is precious and we can never predict what great contributions a child may make to God’s great earth in the future, regardless of his or her circumstances during childhood.

Work-Life balance

There was little mention about concrete plans to encourage more work-life balance in Singapore. Many of mothers want to return to the workforce after giving birth. However, are reluctant to because they want to be involved in raising their kids and have no intention of returning to the rat race.

Apart from developing a more family-friendly culture, Singapore companies need to seriously look into job redesign to provide part-time or home-based work for mothers. In our digital age, telecommuting is entirely possible for many professional jobs. By hiring two part-timers to fill one full-time job position, companies will not only provide more jobs for mothers but more often than not will be able to get more than half the time from each worker.

Welfarism or financing the rich?

On a final note, I wonder if the $1.6 billion is going to be money well spent. It has been reported that over 40% of the giveaways is going to be in the form of tax rebates. Since only a small percentage of income earners actually pay taxes, tax rebates are essentially carrots used to incentivise well-to-do couples who don’t actually need the extra money. This goes against basic socialist principles (on which Singapore was founded) of redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, not the other way around.

The maternity leave payments should not simply be based on one’s last drawn salary. Can you imagine: a mother who makes $20,000 a month will get $40,000 cash from the government and $40,000 from her company when she would surely have enough savings and investments to not need that money. Therefore I believe that maternity leave benefits should be capped at $3,500 per month so as not to finance the rich to make them even richer.

Similarly tax rebates should be capped at say the first $3,000 of taxable income. In other words, a person earning $10,000 a month should not get any more tax rebates in absolute terms than someone earning $3,500 a month.

Conclusion

No one can fault the government for not trying hard enough to raise our flagging birth rates. But political will, str
ong as it may be, is up against much more powerful societal forces. We need to step out of our box and radically change our approach if we are going to edge our birth rate closer to the elusive replacement level.

.