mollymeek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} mollymeek) wrote,@ 2007-03-10 15:04:00 |
|
Lesser Beings in an Equal Society
The Baby Bonus and the Single Parent
As far as Molly can sum up, the Baby Bonus is meant to encourage people to have children by supposedly lowering the costs of bringing up a child. I say "supposedly" because the sum of money might not alleviate the financial burden all that much:
- Your first two children will each receive a cash gift of $3000.
- Your next two children will each receive a cash gift of $6000.
- For your second to fourth children, you can set up a Children Development Account (CDA) for them and the money you deposit into this account will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the government, subject to caps. For your second child, the cap will be $6000. For your third and fourth children, the cap will be $12,000. (Source)
Clearly, the government is not just encouraging people to have children. It is encouraging people to have more children. The more children a married couple has, the bigger their/their children's financial packages. I don't know whether to call it a scheme for the parents or a scheme for the children. Perhaps it's both, but it is obvious that only parents could comprehend and be enticed by such a scheme, so the Scheme really targets audience while using the innocent baby as its avatar.
Quite immediately, we sense something amiss. In its bid to get married couples to have more children, is the government ranking children. If you are the older child, you are worth less to us. What we want is for your papa and mama to give you more siblings. Sometimes we watch in Channel 8 dramas the way some noble eldest sibling give up their studies in order to work and support the younger ones. Maybe this trope will get a new lease of life years later.
Of course, there are also astute parents who point out that the CDA account sounds like ascam scheme that traps parents' money long-term in one account. And there are only so many ways you can use the money. Conspiracy theorists speculate about where the money ends up even if they are spent.
More recently, however, the issue of why unwed mothers and their babies do not qualify for the Baby Bonus has been brought up in the Parliament thanks to NMP Siew Kum Hong.
As usual, our darling CNA is able to sum up the hopelessly impressively circular (il)logic of the government's representatives in one succinct sentence (perhaps without seeing the irony?):
In other words, we won't extend the baby bonus to single unwed mothers because we won't. The Baby Bonus will remain something for married couples because we won't extend it.
This is perhaps the epitome of the intelligent remarks that are made in none other than the Parliament itself.
The issue actually goes beyond the Baby Bonus. NMP Siew was raising the issue of how single unwed mothers are not treated equally in by the government compared to married mothers, whether the latter are blissfully married or if they are actually victims of domestic abuse. NMP Siew had also asked for the third-month maternity benefits to be extended to single, unwed mothers.
Either CNA is being unnecessarily subversive or Mrs. Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports) has a rather banal reply: single unwed mothers are not a large group in Singapore. [Going by Mrs. Yu-Foo's logic, if Indian citizens are not a large group in Singapore, does it mean that the government doesn't have to treat them as equals to Malays and Chinese citizens?]
Other wonderful reasons Mrs. Yu-Foo came up with for not extending the Baby Bonus to single unwed mothers include the fact that they are eligible for other sorts of benefits that married mothers are eligible for: concessionary maid levy and childcare leave. Even better: they can also rent or buy a HDB flat with their parents - or another single - if they are aged 35 and above.
Very. Clever.
Let's use Mrs Yu-Foo's logic for more purposes. Since our ministers are entitled to take up various positions in the corporate world (directorships), they don't need us to pay them millions of dollars a year. And since our ministers are also Singaporeans, they are eligible for Workfare and so we don't even have to pay them more than $1500 per month each.
Single unwed mothers are not entitled to the Baby Bonus because they are entitled to everything else. Yes, that's to sum it up in one line.
But you have yet to see the best of Mrs Yu-Foo:
"The Marriage and Parenthood Package is not a financial assistance scheme for children. The government cannot and should not be the surrogate father."
So, the Baby Bonus is supposed to lighten the financial costs of having children, but it's not a financial assistance scheme! The government can give the Baby Bonus to poor married couples without becoming the surrogate father, but if it extends the Bonus to single unwed mothers, it will become a surrogate father!
Whether you want to call it a financial assistance scheme or a married-with-babies scheme, isn't the aim to lighten the financial burdens of parents. Sorry, no. It's actually totrick encourage married couples to have children.
And, well, single unwed mothers are perhaps deemed less likely to have two, three or four children. So their babies are not worth the Baby Bonus. We are not assured of the presence of a man to impregnate the single unwed mother, so why should the Baby Bonus be extended to them?
Furthermore, the government can't be taking a risk by (gosh!) encouraging immoral activities like pre-marital sex, can it? It's reputation would be destroyed overnight!
Haha. OK, the government did say anything like the above two paragraphs. But you decide whether they are good guesses.
Single unwed mothers, often more so than married mothers, make a conscious decision to keep their babies instead of aborting them due to the social stigmas associated with being, well, single unwed mothers. [Yes, Molly used the term "single unwed mothers" so many times because she's fascinated by it: why can't they be just single mothers/unwed mothers or just mothers, but must instead be single unwed mothers?]
If the Baby Bonus is meant to encourage people to make a decision to have babies (it is indeed a decision in this age of "family planning"), then single parents who have an even tougher time making the decision need even more encouragement and help to lessen their financial burdens.
By refusing to extend the Baby Bonus to single parents, a message is sent out that if you do not have a legal father, you are a lesser being, whether or not such a message is intended. While encouraging people to set up families, we need not stigmatize those who do not have the fortune of having a conventional family. Is the MCDYS and the government just around to encourage hegemonic ideals of what the family is like at the expense of a marginal population and at the expense of alternative family make-ups?
Sons of single parents serve NS too.
The Baby Bonus and the Single Parent
As far as Molly can sum up, the Baby Bonus is meant to encourage people to have children by supposedly lowering the costs of bringing up a child. I say "supposedly" because the sum of money might not alleviate the financial burden all that much:
- Your first two children will each receive a cash gift of $3000.
- Your next two children will each receive a cash gift of $6000.
- For your second to fourth children, you can set up a Children Development Account (CDA) for them and the money you deposit into this account will be matched dollar-for-dollar by the government, subject to caps. For your second child, the cap will be $6000. For your third and fourth children, the cap will be $12,000. (Source)
Clearly, the government is not just encouraging people to have children. It is encouraging people to have more children. The more children a married couple has, the bigger their/their children's financial packages. I don't know whether to call it a scheme for the parents or a scheme for the children. Perhaps it's both, but it is obvious that only parents could comprehend and be enticed by such a scheme, so the Scheme really targets audience while using the innocent baby as its avatar.
Quite immediately, we sense something amiss. In its bid to get married couples to have more children, is the government ranking children. If you are the older child, you are worth less to us. What we want is for your papa and mama to give you more siblings. Sometimes we watch in Channel 8 dramas the way some noble eldest sibling give up their studies in order to work and support the younger ones. Maybe this trope will get a new lease of life years later.
Of course, there are also astute parents who point out that the CDA account sounds like a
More recently, however, the issue of why unwed mothers and their babies do not qualify for the Baby Bonus has been brought up in the Parliament thanks to NMP Siew Kum Hong.
As usual, our darling CNA is able to sum up the hopelessly impressively circular (il)logic of the government's representatives in one succinct sentence (perhaps without seeing the irony?):
"The baby bonus will not be extended to single unwed mothers as the Marriage and Parenthood Package is an incentive for married couples."
In other words, we won't extend the baby bonus to single unwed mothers because we won't. The Baby Bonus will remain something for married couples because we won't extend it.
This is perhaps the epitome of the intelligent remarks that are made in none other than the Parliament itself.
The issue actually goes beyond the Baby Bonus. NMP Siew was raising the issue of how single unwed mothers are not treated equally in by the government compared to married mothers, whether the latter are blissfully married or if they are actually victims of domestic abuse. NMP Siew had also asked for the third-month maternity benefits to be extended to single, unwed mothers.
Either CNA is being unnecessarily subversive or Mrs. Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Minister of State for Community Development, Youth and Sports) has a rather banal reply: single unwed mothers are not a large group in Singapore. [Going by Mrs. Yu-Foo's logic, if Indian citizens are not a large group in Singapore, does it mean that the government doesn't have to treat them as equals to Malays and Chinese citizens?]
Other wonderful reasons Mrs. Yu-Foo came up with for not extending the Baby Bonus to single unwed mothers include the fact that they are eligible for other sorts of benefits that married mothers are eligible for: concessionary maid levy and childcare leave. Even better: they can also rent or buy a HDB flat with their parents - or another single - if they are aged 35 and above.
Very. Clever.
Let's use Mrs Yu-Foo's logic for more purposes. Since our ministers are entitled to take up various positions in the corporate world (directorships), they don't need us to pay them millions of dollars a year. And since our ministers are also Singaporeans, they are eligible for Workfare and so we don't even have to pay them more than $1500 per month each.
Single unwed mothers are not entitled to the Baby Bonus because they are entitled to everything else. Yes, that's to sum it up in one line.
But you have yet to see the best of Mrs Yu-Foo:
"The Marriage and Parenthood Package is not a financial assistance scheme for children. The government cannot and should not be the surrogate father."
So, the Baby Bonus is supposed to lighten the financial costs of having children, but it's not a financial assistance scheme! The government can give the Baby Bonus to poor married couples without becoming the surrogate father, but if it extends the Bonus to single unwed mothers, it will become a surrogate father!
Whether you want to call it a financial assistance scheme or a married-with-babies scheme, isn't the aim to lighten the financial burdens of parents. Sorry, no. It's actually to
And, well, single unwed mothers are perhaps deemed less likely to have two, three or four children. So their babies are not worth the Baby Bonus. We are not assured of the presence of a man to impregnate the single unwed mother, so why should the Baby Bonus be extended to them?
Furthermore, the government can't be taking a risk by (gosh!) encouraging immoral activities like pre-marital sex, can it? It's reputation would be destroyed overnight!
Haha. OK, the government did say anything like the above two paragraphs. But you decide whether they are good guesses.
Single unwed mothers, often more so than married mothers, make a conscious decision to keep their babies instead of aborting them due to the social stigmas associated with being, well, single unwed mothers. [Yes, Molly used the term "single unwed mothers" so many times because she's fascinated by it: why can't they be just single mothers/unwed mothers or just mothers, but must instead be single unwed mothers?]
If the Baby Bonus is meant to encourage people to make a decision to have babies (it is indeed a decision in this age of "family planning"), then single parents who have an even tougher time making the decision need even more encouragement and help to lessen their financial burdens.
By refusing to extend the Baby Bonus to single parents, a message is sent out that if you do not have a legal father, you are a lesser being, whether or not such a message is intended. While encouraging people to set up families, we need not stigmatize those who do not have the fortune of having a conventional family. Is the MCDYS and the government just around to encourage hegemonic ideals of what the family is like at the expense of a marginal population and at the expense of alternative family make-ups?
Sons of single parents serve NS too.
