Few babies? It's the Hotel Mama mindset

[And now we bring you the tale of a sexually frustrated young man in Singapore...]

Sep 9, 2009

IT IS not by chance that Singapore has such a low fertility rate. There are many contributing factors, but an important one is the housing policy and the mindset behind it.

In Europe and the United States, people leave their homes in their early 20s or even earlier. With their salaries, they can afford to rent a place, maybe with a friend or two. Those aged 25 and above, who are still living at home, are considered strange, immature and lacking in independence.

In the West, people in their 20s experiment, enjoy their freedom and have probably more than one relationship before they settle down and start a family.

[And what are their TFR?]

In Singapore, it is a policy that only married couples can have an affordable, subsidised flat. It is way too expensive for someone who has just entered the workforce to rent or buy an apartment on the resale market. So they live with their parents and enjoy Hotel Mama, which is comfortable and saves them some money.

But they have to follow their parents' rules, such as, 'When I wake up, you have to be in your bed, alone'. Bringing a lover home is out of the question. For them, childhood continues until they are well into their 30s.

Is it then really surprising that there are not many babies?

[You really need to learn from our students. They somehow managed it. At home, when their parents are at work. At void decks, stairwells, holiday chalets, parks, etc. And they start as young as 10 now. and they don't need to be Americans or Europeans. :-)]

It is not just a question of having no private space. It is also a question of mentality. In the West, young people learn early to stand on their own feet, to take care of themselves, to live their own lives.

In Singapore, the young are conditioned to follow the rules, to live for their schools or jobs, to listen to their parents and to be obedient citizens.

But different qualities are needed for starting a family, such as readiness to take risks, independence and the ability to have fun.

[Ya. Those are the qualities to start a pregnancy. But the qualities to be a good parent should include sense of responsibility, discipline, resourcefulness, and tenacity.]

In Singapore, there is too much emphasis on obedience, too little on independence. That is not good for having babies.

[Wong (below) will say something about this. Much better than I can. You dodo.]

Some might say that Singapore has no choice because it is a small island. But I don't know any other big city which has so much empty land, even at the best locations next to underground train stations.

[There you are! have sex next to the train station!]

It seems to be the policy here to make available only a little land for buildings and to keep property prices sky-high.

[Damn! you found out our national secret. We'll have to stop you from procreating!]

Peter Huber

-------- online comments ---------
[And now, a comment from our resident misogynist & bigot:]

The writer, Peter Huber, is entitled to his theory to explain SG's low birth rate just like any of us. He may have something when he points to the high property prices ( as part of the high costs of living in general). In the main, though, he blames it on us for being docile obedient dodos when compared with the ("superior") risk-taking independent die-die-must-move-out Westerners. 

If he had put more thought into it, he might have noticed: 

1. When SG had a post-war baby boom, the pre-conditions to which he ascribes higher birth rates in the West didn't obtain then, in some ways even less than now. Rent was not cheap relative to income, extended families lived under-one-roof and social norms were far more conservative than now. 

2. In fact, in none of the Asian countries that experienced a baby boom were you likely to have found the pre-conditions to which the writer ascribes Western birth rates. Indeed, relative to these Asian countries during their baby boom years, Western birth rates were LOWER. 

3. He might have noticed that if we were indeed obedient docile dodos, we would NOT HAVE a birth rate problem because we would obey the exhortations of the govt and our own parents to pro-create.

[Bravo! *clap* *clap*. Wong, despite his misogyny, is an intelligent man. But then he goes on...]

But, of course, Mr. Huber was not really interested in a deeper look into his own theory. His letter was about ideology i.e. pushing the stock Western line about "superior" Western freedom versus stifling Asian conformity. Same ole same ole. This kind of superiority complex underpinned the whole era of overt imperialism and the thing to note is how alive and well it is up to now. (So much for the Westernised who claim differently.) 

 [No, no, Mr Wong. You're misinterpreting the sexual frustrations of a young man with no privacy with higher ideals. In doing so, you ridiculously elevate the testosterone ranting of a sex-starved young man to the level of a clash of civilisations. Samuel Huntington, he is not. Mr Wong is born in the wrong era. He would have made a wonderful anti-colonialist.]

Look, if we don't care for generalisations about Asian societies being "morally superior" to Western societies then we must recognise Mr. Huber's letter for what it is - merely a similar generalisation in the opposite direction. Come back when you have a real take on our problems, Mr. Huber, but spare us the cold war era ideological broadcast.

[And Mr Wong should take off his tunnel-vision glasses. :-) ]

Posted by: WongHoongHooi at Wed Sep 09 15:00:42 SGT 2009

...
[And now a word from our resident Anti-PAP...]

WongHoongHooi,
The reason for the stop at two policy was obvious - the govt projected the population based on the birth rates then (1960's) to be untenable for whatever developmental plans it had in mind.
And as they say, things tend to acquire their own momentum once things get rolling. One thing leads to another. Small families and policies designed as disincentive for having large families inevitably led to the 'nuclear' family, more liberal abortion law etc.
The stop at two policy became so ingrained in govt policy consideration order of the day that nobody gave a dot when reproduction rates dived below renewal level. And of course, the making of an aging population obviously crossed nobody's mind. The dominant thought was probably this: the overpopulation issue has been effectively
tackled. And it didn't help when the PM is such a dominant and overpowering figure that no well meaning and career minded senior civil servant dared to point out the looming problem to him in order to live another day1
What did people like Ngiam Tong Tow and the Chief Statistician who probably have the ears of the top do then?
I have a cynical belief that many probable did see the problem looming but were AFRAID to speak for they love their families' and their own future more.
THERE IS NO RUNNING AWAY FROM RESPONSIBILITY BY THE POLITICIANS IN THE MANNER THINGS TURN OUT IN A COUNTRY. THE BUCK STOPS SQUARELY AT THE DOOR STEP OF THE LEADERSHIP. IN THIS CASE WE KNOW WHO.
Posted by: commentator_sc at Wed Sep 09 16:22:24 SGT 2009

...

[Commentator was having such a good run, I didn't have the heart to interject. :-)

But this is a case study of hijacked agendas. Huber writes a barely disguised piece on his sexual frustration. which is translated by the anglophobe as an attack on his culture and rises to defend his civilisation while casting Huber in the role of imperialist. Then commentator comes along and says, "it's all LKY's fault!"

And that is a day in the life at the ST forum.

You have to laugh.]