3Q Blog

Birth rate woes in Singapore

2008-08-31T01:55:00.000-07:00

The recent buzz in news and country matters were focused much on the declining birth rates of Singapore. The prime minister even had incentives in a bid to boost birth rates. These methods – monetary or otherwise- are useless in my personal opinion. Besides, if they were to use incentives, it should be done in a way such that everything would be covered. As quoted from a man who was interviewed on the show, 前线追踪, he said that if such incentives in place, they would have to be much in depth because the current and even improved incentives are not sufficient to cover the costs of simply bringing up a child alone, not to mention education, enrichment and entertainment. It was suggested that education be free from nursery all the way to university, which is feel is good but impossible to achieve. This is solely based on the fact that Singapore is a small country without natural resources, and has to draw strength from her workforce alone to sustain the nation’s activities. There is a need for young people to always be ready to take over and sustain the economy. What intrigued me the most about that was the need for people to sustain the economy; instead of the economy sustaining the people.

Following that, another possible cause would be the lifestyle of people in Singapore. Take a look at Japan. A modern metropolis like Singapore, plagued with the problem of an aging population. With such a fast paced life, couples are hardly able to find the time to procreate, not to even mention taking care of the child alone. Every parent want the best for their child; and this cannot be ensured if the couple is unable to spend time nurturing their child due to the workload and workplace stress they face. A worker is employed to work, not to spend 4 months on maternity leave. This discourages women from having children because they are afraid of being disadvantaged or retrenched. Also, modern women find that having a stable job and income is much more appealing as compared to relying on their husbands: the idea of being a career woman.

Also, it could be due to the mindset and priorities of the people; I quote from http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/singapores-declining-birth-rate/, “It boils down to a matter of priorities in life, does it not? We tend to live more for ourselves than anything else these days. Technology has given us the ‘My’ generation - MyDocuments, MySpace, MySQL, MyFiles, My*Everything*, except people don’t want MyBaby. We want that car and that condo and that annual vacation (more won’t harm) and that maid (whatever for when you don’t have kids?) and ad nauseum. We want everything, and before we can attain all these material goodies, we have no money nor time for a baby. ” This explains the problem of being overly materialistic, and the problem is rapidly growing due to the mindset of the people. Personally, when I ask myself this question, “Why are you working so hard? What for? “ I can answer that it is because for my desire to lead a good life if not a material life. In order to “have a good life”, people have to work for it. For working couples, this instinct is even stronger. It is to achieve the 5Cs: Condo, car, credit card, country club and cash. What for spend money on raising a child when all that it does is to stress you out? A child, in the context of Singapore, would be a burden. Many parents also believe that if they are unable to provide well enough for the child, they would only bring suffering to themselves and their child, and therefore choose not to have a child.

Overall, I feel that the government’s current methods of increasing birth rate will only end in failure. They would have well been barking up the wrong tree because the problem is in mentality. Which parent does not sacrifice luxuries for their child? Even my parents do till today. But what about people today? I am unable to imagine myself sacrificing luxuries for the sake of a child with an uncertain future. What about the country’s mentality as a whole? Our pursuit of economic excellence in the past 40 years have had good yield; but it resulted in many people turning materialistic. The low birth rate would also be the consequence of the 2 child policy put into place in the 70s. Now, they are promoting “have as many as you can, the more, the merrier”. Would this result in an overcrowded Singapore? Would we see 2 million elderly citizens picking tin cans for a living in the future? Only time will tell.

To proceed to Joel's blog (the one after mine), the url is http://2008ri3q13joellimtianhuei.blogspot.com/

“Democracy creates stability in a society”

2008-07-14T05:18:00.000-07:00

Democracy is a political system that holds majority rule as its core. It is based on a voting system in which people are allowed to vote for the party that bests represents their own interests. Stability can be classified widely under political, economical and social stability. Democracy a double-edged sword, meaning that it can do both good and harm a society.

Firstly, democracy is able to promote political stability. This is largely due to the fact that each party has had an equal chance in reaching out to the people and gathering the votes. Also, a direct voting system makes the government more accountable to the people. Therefore political strife should be little, if not none at all.

Secondly, democracy is able to promote economic stability. Since there would always be a political power taking care of most matters in place, economic policies would be more or less standardized. This would welcome foreign investors to start businesses in the society and therefore contribute to the economic growth of the nation. This would be impossible if political stability was not present. Having democracy in place means that most of the people are satisfied with the government due to the majority rule, and thus lesser chaos with regards to politics would occur in the country. As such, there is a low chance of a riot or a strike that may paralyze an investors business or economy. Having fixed policies in place would also lower the chances of people monopolizing the market and allow for a stable and non-fluctuating economy, resulting in a stable economy.

Lastly, democracy is able to promote social stability. This is so when people’s needs are taken care of. These needs might include space for religion, freedom of choice, and equal opportunities for all. Due to the characteristics of democracy, the government has to address all issues raised by the people. Due to the accountability of the government towards the people, there is sufficient communication between both parties, allowing for opinions and questions to be raised and answered. With a safe and good environment to live in, social stability can be taken care of easily.

However, there are always problems in this system. Since elections are held, the party could very well distort facts and divert the voters’ attention elsewhere, leading the people away from the big picture and sway the votes. Corruption could also prove to be a big problem. However, the underlying cause for these problems that would lead to instability would be the assumption that the people are always right. Democracy would only work best with a well-educated community who can discern black and white. If the people are poorly-educated and therefore be unable to see right from wrong, this system would fail. An example would be the fanfare used in countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia. Such tactics of distraction would cause a negative shift in votes if the people are unable to see beyond the fanfare and understand the real situation. If the wrong people are elected, stability on a whole could be but a dream for the society.

As a conclusion, democracy could either succeed or fail, but it is all dependent on the people due to the fact that the government is selected by the people. If the people do not understand the rationale behind democracy, it would all fail.

Social Issues In Singapore: Charity

2008-02-29T19:18:00.000-08:00

1/3/2008, Saturday

Recently in school, there was this donation card being given out to everyone. The money collected would be given to listed beneficiaries. Everyone moaned and complained about how stupid they would look asking relatives to donate. A few weeks flew by, and when the time was for us to pass our cards to our teachers, many of us were still left with an empty card. I was one of them. We simply laughed at each other about how "unenthusiastic" we were and passed the empty card to our teacher, with some of us putting a meager amount as a "small token". Seeing our poor response towards charity, we got lectured about the mindset of giving and sharing: things heard every time a donation drive in school was started. Some say that its the sincerity that counts, but what sincerity is there by giving $1 when some get $10 pocket money per day!?
Many argue that charity is voluntary, but I feel that it is being done through peer pressure, at least in my situation. Seeing my classmates having an average of at least $5, I would donate using my own money to prevent myself from being singled out from the crowd.

If one had realized, ever since the NKF fraud incident, the chances of people donating more generously when charity shows are on have skydived. People who once believed in charity have given up on it as well. Even as I think about it, whenever people approach my parents for donations, they would always follow the 3 Golden Rules Towards Charity: Avoid, Ignore or Give In. With regards to giving in, they would donate about 20 cents to get the sticker for the ENTIRE family so that we would not be approached again by them.

In Singapore, there are many types and genres of charity. I would widely classify them widely as the needy, the neglected and the leeches. Come to think about it, whenever I frequent places such as the Newton Circus Food Centre, I would always get at least 2-3 people approaching me to buy their tissue paper when their entire body smell of tobacco and booze. Furthermore, they do not have any physical disabilities that prevent them from earning a decent living. Perhaps it is these kind of people that cause locals to lose their heart for charity altogether. Just to add, tourist-frequented places such as Newton Circus and Rochor Road have a rather high number of beggars appearing. However, at Rochor Rd most of them have physical disabilities. These people are those that I would willingly donate to. I would only donate money to a certain organization provided that I get to see their people. I have to confirm the beneficiaries, face to face.

Nevertheless, I feel that we should still have a heart for the needy. Despite Singapore being a country having a High Gross Domestic Product (GDP), there would definitely be the neglected, the homeless, and the needy that need our help. The government can never possibly take care of everyone, so it is up to us now to take care of each other as a cohesive society.

To proceed to Joel's blog (the one after mine), the url is http://2008ri3q13joellimtianhuei.blogspot.com/