The Effectiveness Of Anti-Natalist And Pro-Natalist Policies In Singapore

Singapore is an island city-state in Southeast Malaysia which lies at the tip off the Malay Peninsula, it is known to be Southeast Asia’s most modern city. It is a global financial center with a multicultural population, a tropical climate and is a total of 660 square kilometers. Singapore is a MEDC which is in stage 5 of the demographic transmission model. Singapore has a population of 5. 607 million as of 2016, the average life expectancy for women are 84 years old and 79 years old for men, according to the UN.

Singapore has a birthrate of 1. 24 births per woman (2015) with a death rate of 4. 8 per thousand people as of 2015. Singapore has been both anti-natalist and pro-natalist as they have had several policies put in place to decrease and increase their population as their population changed over time. In this report the different population policies that Singapore’s government implemented will be discussed as well as the long-term effect it has had on the country as a whole. Singapore’s fertility rate peaked in 1957 as the birthrate was 6 children per woman which caused many problems for Singapore. The problems were the widespread unemployment, shortage of housing, increasing pressure on the limited resources of Singapore and the insufficient education and healthcare services the people. Due to the peak in the birthrate Singapore’s government then decided to implement an anti-natalist policy in order to manage the population change.

Anti-natalist policies are often put in place to encourage people to have smaller families. The anti-natalist policy that was put in place in the 1960s was known as the “Stop at Two Policy”. The main features that this policy was multiple family planning clinics that were set up around Singapore in order to encourage small families, they were responsible for initiating a family planning policy though public education programmes using poster, newspapers, radios, television, etc. in order to communicate that small families were more desirable than large ones, the main slogan used was “Girl or Boy – Two is Enough”, although there were many other slogans as seen in the example to the right. To further encourage smaller families the government decided to legalize abortions and sterilization, as well as introducing social and economic incentives such as paid maternity leave, cheaper healthcare, free education and tax relief for small families. Although women who had more than two children were offered no maternity leave as well as no allowance for having a large family. Women who gave birth were advised to go to their family doctors for family planning services where they were given advice and consultation on contraception and were given the opportunity to purchase contraceptives at reduced prices.

The “Stop at Two” policy was too successful as the birthrate decreased constantly for the following 20 years, the total fertility rate dropped to 1. 4 from the replacement level of 2. 1. This drastic drop in fertility rate was due to increased stress levels which decreased the desire for children and the increase of women in the workforce, who were putting their careers before having a family and raising children as the cost of raising children were high at the time. The family planning policy was also successful because Singapore was a well-educated and highly urbanized society which also meant that the number of women entering the workforce or continuing with a higher educated increased. The family planning policy was also successful as marrying later in life became a trend in Singapore and couples waited longer before having children. The drop-in fertility rate had many consequences such as the falling economy and tax base, many job vacancies were not filled and at the time 0% of the workforce were migrants. Another issue the policy caused was that Singapore’s population began to age which meant that the elderly became dependent on the proportion of working population and this then resulted in pressure on pension payouts as well as health services. Because of all the issues caused with the policy the Singaporean government replaced the “Stop at Two” policy as they realized the importance of having a younger generation to replace the ageing workforce as the economy would not be as competitive compared to other countries. As well as the need for younger citizens the continued economic expansion was difficult without the increase in local labor supply, and the government was concerned that the large reduction of young, able male adults enlisting in the armed forces would have consequences for national security.

Therefore, due to the substantial drop in fertility rate and all the problems the “Stop at Two” policy caused, the Singaporean government then realized the policy had to change and proceeded to reverse the anti-natalist policy into a pro-natalist policy which encouraged couples to “Have Three” in 1987. The government realized that the couples that were having less children were the more educated couple and those with a lower education were having larger families at a faster rate. Hence, along with the government’s attempt at a new policy of cultivating a more educated and high skilled workforce, they proceeded to introduce a campaign with the slogan “Have Three or More If You Can Afford It”, although there were other campaigns used such as the example below. There were many features of this policy that were put in place to encourage people to have larger families, one of which is that maternity leave was extended from the previous eight weeks to twelve. People were encouraged to marry as a young age in order to increase the opportunity for them “to have more children during their high fertility years”. Another is that “Have three or more, if you can afford it” campaigns were put up across Singapore, these campaigns and many other features mostly targeted young-educated women as they were the most able to afford it, as well as married couples, although they mostly gave benefits to higher-educated mothers. The Singaporean government partially funded education, gave them priority for school registration and gave allocation priority to parents who gave birth to three or more children over smaller families. The government also gave a tax rebate of $20 000 to mothers who gave birth to their second child before they were 28 years old. The “Have Three” policy was successful and had a positive initial response. The total fertility rate was 1. 4 babies per woman in 1986, before the policy was implemented, and after the policy was implemented it rose to 1. 96 children per women. Although in 1990 the fertility rate dropped to 1. 90 babies per woman and to 1. 60 babies per woman in 1999. The drop-in fertility rate was due to the increasing number of people not getting married and women started marrying later, therefore they had children at an older age which resulted in fewer children in families.

Due to the drop-in fertility rate the government adapted the “Have Three” policy and added additional incentives in 2001, the government offered the Baby Bonus scheme. The aim of this scheme “is to remove the financial obstacles associated with having more children”. Hence, when couples have more children a Children Development Account was set up for the second child of the family, by the government. This meant that “the government will contribute $500 to the account annually and match, up to another $1000, for every dollar deposited into the account by the family. For the third child, the government will contribute $1000 to the account annually and match, up to another $2000 in contributions by the family. This incentive will be valid until the children are six years of age. The money can be utilized for the education and development of any child in the family”. Additional to the Baby Bonus scheme the government also offered “The Third Child Pay Maternity Leave scheme” which meant that they government paid up to a “maximum of $20 000, the wage cost of a mother granted eight weeks of maternity leave for her third child”. The word arrangements were also made more family-friendly in the civil service as well as making childcare centers more affordable and available. The government monitored the birthrates until 2006 in order to review the effectiveness of the new adaption to the “Have Three” policy.

It is clear that the “Have Three” policy was more successful than the “Stop at Two” policy as the Singaporean government have not yet implement another policy and it is still in pace today. Although there were some issues with the “Have Three” policy such as the drops in birthrate as women became more career focused and due to the development of Singapore, or the insufficient number of workers to fill job vacancies, the “Stop at Two” policy caused a lot more severe issues such as an ageing workforce, the decreased in men in the army, and the large number of job vacancies. Hence, the “Have Three” policy did in fact prove itself to be successful with the continued adaption of the policy. As seen over the years Singapore has gone to a great extent to ensure that their birthrate remains stable, although they had negatives and positives. As Singapore changed between anti-natalist and pro-natalist policies they seemed to balance each other out when looking at Singapore’s population growth as of 2016. Although their policies were both caused Singapore some issues they did work very well in the end and I believe they will continue to do so as long as Singapore continues to adapt the policy because over time things such as economic development, population, etc. tends to change.