[Drafted Feb 2018)
First, let's do some math.
[Warning: Heavy computation ahead.]
Ok. Now that we have gotten rid of those who are just interested in complaining about how crowded Singapore is, let's work with some facts. And let's start with the TFR.
In 1984, Lee Kuan Yew unintentionally (?) kicked off the Great Marriage Debate (GMD) which included the warning about Singapore's falling TFR (Total Fertility Rate). Basically, he was the first to point out that we were not reproducing ourselves.
Well, the cynics rebutted, who started the damn "stop at two" population policy?
Well, it said stop at two. It didn't say "stop at one", or "don't even think about starting", or "who the heck wants to get married even".
If you are such damn REBELS, why the heck did you comply with the "stop at two" campaign?
And if you are such compliant WEASELS, why didn't you start having more children when the government reversed their policies? And the govt HAS reversed its policies with the baby bonus. So why are you still living in the past and NOT MOVING WITH THE TIMES?
[Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. Every time anyone talks about the low TFR, some idiot will raise the "Stop at Two" campaign - never realising the self-criticism inherent in raising that as a counter-point. ]
In any case, even if SCs compliantly started to get married and have 2.1 kids like LKY asked, even if our annual births went up by 10,000 extra babies each year because people heeded LKY call to reproduce, 1984 was 34 years ago (as at 2017), and 10,000 extra babies each year would only mean 340,000 more Singaporeans, of which only 160,000 would be above 18 and be able to join the workforce.
[Why 10,000 babies? A TFR of 2.1 "translates" roughly to about 50,000 births a year. We are now short by about 10,000 babies annually (about 39,000 births per year.)]
In 1984, I think the figure was in the mid-to-low 40,000. Averaging about 45,000, or less perhaps.
Anyway, 160,000 new Singaporeans above 18 if people heeded LKY's call to go fuck themselves pregnant since 1984.
There are currently about 1.3 million foreigners - work permit, "S" pass, and employment pass holders - in Singapore. If the 160,000 "missing/additional" Singaporeans were intended to fill the vacancies currently filled by foreign workers, we are short by a factor of slightly less than 10. And this is partly because the govt has put the brakes on foreign labour entering our economy.
That suggests two things: One, LKY was wrong about how many babies we need, or Two, the babies were never intended to fill the shortages in labour.
And as we all know LKY is NEVER wrong.
So... boosting the TFR was never about filling the labour shortage?
BINGO!
Yes. There is a joke that goes something like this: Our TFR is falling. We must reverse this. Reverse "TFR"? "RFT? What's that? "Recruit Foreign Talent".
And that joke is based on a misunderstanding of why the government wants citizens to reproduce themselves.
Don't take my word for it. Go read his speech on the TFR in 1984. The Great Marriage Debate (GMD) was controversial not for the (non-existent) intent to meet labour shortages, but the implied eugenic theories or assumptions underlying it, and the perception that it was devaluing women. Or setting women's achievements back.
[LKY has a "scientific" mind. Or he girds his reasons with science, with evidence. On more than one occasion when he was asked about his views on LGBT issues, his answer was along the lines of: consultant scientists have told him that it is nature, not nurture. It is hardwired. It would be futile to try to change it. One gets the impression that there is a sense of annoyance - that he wished the scientist had said, "yes it is mutable", and then he would have done all he can to try to change the LGBT. Or I could be misreading him. Maybe he was annoyed at being asked his views on LGBT issues. :-) Anyway, let's continue... ]
LKY was concerned that many graduate women were not getting married or getting married late, or not having children, or having only 1 child. His concern was (based on eugenics) that if the brightest women were not having children, the next generation would be less smart. Or there would be fewer smart people (I think he was more concerned about this. Genetics/eugenics isn't about betting on a horse. It is about betting on a population of horses. So yes, so-called "smart" people can begat "dumb" children but overall, the number of smart children will be higher with a population of smart parents, although individually, there may be dumb children. Similarly, individually, smart children may be born of dumb parents, but those are exceptions statistically.)
He may also have been concerned (as many Singaporeans are today), that if we do not reproduce ourselves, "born-Singaporeans", raised with our culture, values, and perspective, would be challenged by New-Singaporeans born elsewhere with different culture, values, and perspective.
BUT, the number of Employment Pass Holders (EPH) who earn at least $3,300, which makes these people around the level of graduates, is 175,000. Perhaps the 160,000 "missing" Singaporean Citizens are supposed to partly replaced these EPH?
Perhaps.
I doubt that LKY was that prescient.
And in any case, we should look at what jobs these EPH are doing.
Also, while LKY was perhaps primarily motivated by eugenic concerns, his successor Goh Chok Tong, may have realised the larger threat of a thinning "Cultural Singaporean" (as in raised in Singapore Culture or "born-Singaporean") vs the Naturalised Singaporean (a.k.a. New Singaporean, raised elsewhere with other culture and values), and extended the marriage and procreation incentives to cover non-graduate mothers.
Or was that Lee Hsien Loong?
In any case, the problem today is slightly... no, significantly different from the 1980s.
Firstly, there are more tertiary educated people. In the 70's and probably early 80's, 5% or less of each cohort would have a degree. Targeting graduate mothers who were not getting married was seen as (and it was) elitist.
However, as the percentage of each cohort with a degree increased from the less than 5% to about 20% currently, and maybe 25% or more eventually, the pool of graduate women increases, and also the pool of graduate men who would be their likely marriage partners.
So more graduates are getting married. Because there are more graduates. Not because people are getting smarter, but because education is getting more accessible.
And there is "education inflation".
Today, over 40% of each cohort are tertiary educated - with a degree or diploma.
So this means that 40 years ago (or thereabouts), if you meet a graduate, you can be reasonably sure that this person is in the top 5% or 10% of the population in intelligence.
Today, you can only be reasonably sure that he is probably in the top 50%. Or just above average.
What to do?
Everybody and their mother wants to be a graduate.
No comments:
Post a Comment