Human Rights And The Government Baby Incentives – Part 1

In recent weeks, we have seen public discussion on two apparently unrelated topics. The first topic was human rights. AG Walter Woon sparked off that discussion with his controversial comments associating human rights with hypocrisy and fanaticism:

“Noting that human rights is “now a religion among some people”, he said: “You have, like in some religions, the fanatics. And it’s all hypocrisy and fanaticism (for these people) to set the views, as the leading spokesmen, of what is acceptable and what’s not.”

The second topic was about how to get Singaporeans to have more babies. MM Lee Kuan Yew started that discussion when he revealed that (1) the government is planning to introduce new procreation incentives, and (2) we would seek to use countries like Sweden and Norway as our models.

At first glance, these two topics – human rights and childbirth – seem quite separate. After all, aren’t human rights just all that silly nonsense spouted by Chee Soon Juan and other clowns? As for babies, well, that’s a serious matter, for babies are our economic defence against the perils of a rapidly aging population. Right?

Here’s a curious point which the Singapore government has missed (or has chosen to be silent about). On the procreation issue, we now seek to use the Nordic countries as our model. But we haven’t realized that their parenthood policies are actually quite significantly influenced by human rights considerations. And this is quite true of European countries in general.

How so? Well, for example, let’s look at a rather well-known human rights treaty - the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, for short). The treaty tackles a range of issues relating to women, including pregnancy, motherhood, maternity leave, childcare support, and the involvement of fathers in raising children. Article 11 says:

2. In order to prevent discrimination against women on the grounds of marriage or maternity and to ensure their effective right to work, States Parties shall take appropriate measures:

(a) To prohibit, subject to the imposition of sanctions, dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy or of maternity leave and discrimination in dismissals on the basis of marital status;

(b) To introduce maternity leave with pay or with comparable social benefits without loss of former employment, seniority or social allowances;

(c) To encourage the provision of the necessary supporting social services to enable parents to combine family obligations with work responsibilities and participation in public life, in particular through promoting the establishment and development of a network of child-care facilities ....

Now if you are a country which takes human rights seriously, the fact that you are also a party to CEDAW will inevitably influence your national policies. CEDAW will lead you, as a state, to focus on the welfare of the mother, and the welfare of the child, and even the welfare of the father. And you will incline towards the view that just by the fact that a family is a family, there are certain rights its members ought to have. After all, they’re human.

However, if you are a country which likes to say “Oh, human rights are just an invention of the West; me, I’m Asian, and I’ll have nothing to do with those hypocritical human rights fanatics," then the fact that you’re a party to CEDAW doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

You may still want to support procreation, but the motivations are different. For example, the Singapore government seeks to promote higher baby production, but its motivations are purely economic; the aim is to generate a steady stream of future workers for Singapore Inc..

Then the conundrum becomes this. Babies are economically useless. This is undeniable. They can’t type; they don’t wash dishes; and for a long, long time, they definitely won’t be doing any life sciences research in a R&D laboratory. In fact, babies are very much like Temasek’s investment in Shin Corp or Merrill Lynch. One day, they might generate good returns, but that will have to be in the very, very distant future. Meanwhile, they are just a huge, constant and bleeding economic loss.

This is not an obstacle, if you view babies and parents as humans, and by virtue of being human, automatically having human rights (like those under CEDAW). But what happens if you view babies merely as future economic units, and women merely as economic-unit-producing machines? The question then becomes – do you, as a government, really dare to bite the bullet? And put your money and political will into this very long-term, risky investment?

So far, the government has failed. From the time that "Two is Enough" gave way to "Have Three If You Can Afford it", the government has never succeeded.

[To Be Continued]
Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto

So Is Life Rosy or Not?

One of my readers, Mr Han, requested that I comment on the following letter which was published in the Straits Times:

ST Forum, June 4, 2007
Future not so rosy for working-class S'poreans

MANY Singaporeans must be celebrating at the moment, with the buoyant economy, high employment, higher salaries and, for private home owners, skyrocketing property prices and 'en bloc' frenzy.

However, is the current state of the economy and future as rosy as it appears for most working-class Singaporeans?

According to data published in a report on the wealthiest cities in the world by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) on March 11, Singapore ranks 36th out of 70 cities based on gross domestic product (GDP) in 2005.

A look at the rankings will reveal that, apart from Singapore, all the cities in the bottom half are in Second and Third World countries.

Singapore's GDP of US$129 billion (S$197 billion) pales beside other Asian cities such as Tokyo (US$1.19 trillion), Hong Kong (US$244 billion), Seoul (US$218 billion) and Shanghai (US$139 billion). In fact, we are only slightly ahead of Mumbai (US$123 billion).

These rankings are arrived at by using purchasing-power-parity exchange rates.

However, unlike Singapore, our Asian counterparts in Hong Kong seem to have more to look forward to. The projections for city wealth in the year 2020 show that Hong Kong is likely to rise to 14th position, while Singapore is likely to decline to 40th.

The study (taking into consideration deduction of taxes and social-security contributions) reveals that net salaries in Asian cities such as Tokyo, Dubai, Seoul and Taipei will surpass Singapore.

However, these sobering statistics apply only to the average Singaporean citizen. The top bracket of earners in professions such as medicine, law, banking and, of course, within the ranks of the Government, will earn as much, if not more, than some of their counterparts worldwide.

What do these figures tell Singaporeans? We can conclude that even though we pay a relatively low rate of personal income tax, the net amount of wages we take home leaves us in the bottom half of the 70 cities in the PWC report.

Edmund Khoo Kim Hock

I'm no economist, but this letter doesn't strike me as being particularly well-reasoned. In fact, it reminds me of Edmund Khoo's other recent letter to the Straits Times.

The same difficulty arises here - Edmund seem to form his conclusion first, and then only formulate arguments in favour of it. In the process, he loses objectivity and mangles the facts. Next time, try analysing the facts first, BEFORE forming a conclusion.

Here's one big mistake that Edmund makes:

Singapore's GDP of US$129 billion (S$197 billion) pales beside other Asian cities such as Tokyo (US$1.19 trillion), Hong Kong (US$244 billion), Seoul (US$218 billion) and Shanghai (US$139 billion). In fact, we are only slightly ahead of Mumbai (US$123 billion).

GDP can be used as an indicator of various things. However, if the intention is to use GDP as an indicator of the average citizen's standard of living (and that's clearly Edmund's intention), the least we could do is look at GDP on a per capita basis. That is, take the GDP and divide it by the size of the population.

That's because GDP is basically a measure of how big an economy is. A big city with a large population could have a GDP much higher than a small city with a small population. But on a per capita basis, we would realise that the average person in the big city isn't necessarily any richer, and in fact could be much poorer, than the average person in the small city.

The report that Edmund cites is based on a comparison of cities and GDP. In this report, Singapore is ranked 36th out of 151 cities , approximately in the same range as cities just as Shanghai (32nd), Melbourne (33rd), Mumbai (37th) and Rome (38th).

However, Shanghai and Mumbai are MUCH more populous than Singapore; while Melbourne has a slightly smaller population than Singapore; while Rome has a much smaller population than Singapore. If you go by a per capita approach, you'd probably see that the relative rankings of these cities would change quite a lot.

Now, if you compare countries based on GDP on a per capita basis, Singapore fares much better than 36th out of 151. Wikipedia tells us that Singapore would be ranked 25th out of 182 countries.

Of course, countries like Denmark, Sweden and Finland still rank far above us (8th, 10th and 12th). This is despite the fact that like Singapore, these countries are quite small, and not well-endowed with natural resources.

According to MM Lee Kuan Yew, the governments of these countries are even "mediocre", and therefore their ministers deserve to be paid much, much less than Singapore's PAP leaders.

An entirely believable claim, as long as you choose to disregard the facts.

Gadis Bispak Imut

• Lihat Foto
• Lihat Foto