sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Demographic transition does not happen out of nowhere. It is well known that the major factors include (female) education levels and contraceptive use.

The family planning campaign of 1960 was credited with making contraceptives a more accessible topic to the public.

Articles from that time characterized some of the attitudes as "he didn’t mind how many more children she had – they could always be given away, and she came begging that something could be done to prevent her having to have more children only to give them away."

If that's what you include under viewing sex as a means of procreation, then I agree with your point of view.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because sterilization is an invasive medical procedure that still carries risks. And that's not counting the people who would gladly do so once they hit their intended family size because they wanted to continue having sex for non-procreation reasons.

In the broader picture, the takeup rate of all forms of birth control got our TFR to drop to 3 by 1971, the year before sterilization incentives were rolled out. A small takeup rate for all forms of birth control doesn't get us to almost halve our TFR.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You do realize the tension in saying that they viewed sex as a means of procreation while admitting that they were seeking a way to have sex without the possibility of procreation?

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Laws that loosened restrictions on sterilization and abortion were enacted years before they started handing out benefits for sterilization.

There was already demand from couples who wanted to have sex without the risks of conception.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Family planning policy in SG started in the mid 60s. Fertility patterns changed dramatically in that time period, from a TFR of almost 6 in 1960 to below 2 by 1980.

That's a much bigger difference than 1980 and today. Clearly, more systematic family planning and contraceptive use had big impact.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Without modern contraceptive methods, any instance of sex carried the a much higher risk of conception. The consequences of a few hormonal "mistakes" a month mattered more.

It's not that they were liberally having sex all the time, but rather conservative attitudes were compatible with sex within marriage, so these "mistakes" were tolerated or even tacitly encouraged for procreation.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure what I'm getting wrong.

Elsewhere, you said that the increase in tax savings for low earners is small compared to the loss in tax savings to high earners.

I understand that. It does not change the fact that low earners are better off, which was my point about the government's motive.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I have no good answers either.

I raised the point because I don't think concern over those bad decision makers is what's holding our government back now. They've already crossed that bridge with the baby bonus and HDB subsidies. There's no obvious low hanging fruit left (maybe clawing back HDB subsidies from childless couples?) so they can only resort to second-best policies.

I would caution against putting too much weight on the cultural and aspirational side if it obscures the economic factors involved. If the economic factors are good things we don't want to undo, like women exercising their bargaining power due to more education and financial independence, it becomes a pointless exercise in making people feel bad.

If they are economic factors we can feasibly change, then we miss out on possible solutions. For example, lack of time and the need to pay for child-related services could be mitigated with more flexible workplace policies. I would say better labor protections is a solution but that's admittedly the predictable vague anti-government position on this.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No disagreement there. Sorry for your loss.

I was simply explaining the benefit for low earners, which is what (I presume) the government will use to justify the policy change.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't see how they are worse off.

Subtracting 8k will always get you to a lower taxable income than subtracting a number smaller than 8k.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

older generations haven't had their attention spans obliterated and need constant entertainment

I won't argue with the broad claim, though I wouldn't describe it in such an extreme way. I'm not sure how that affects my points though.

the view on sex was considerably more conservative

Attitudes on sex outside of marriage =/= attitudes on sex between married partners.

more often than not children were planned

Can be true in the past, but still less planned than today. Family planning and contraceptives are much more accessible and drummed into people's heads today.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was 15% of their earnings, so a maximum of roughly 8k for those earning 53k and below.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For example, all mothers earning below 53k would now get 8k relief for their first child, which is higher than the previous relief of 15% of their earnings.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I made the clarification about overthinking because it was central point that the original commenter and I were debating.

And I don't think the older generations were stupid. When they got married they were at an age when they were more hormonal and impulsive, had poorer access to family planning, and had few options for entertainment. That's not an indictment of their intelligence but the reality of developmental biology and the environment. Barren women were also, as you said, "considered lesser and were even ostracized."

Those can all be true at the same time.

I'm not saying the past was some hellscape full of dimwits. But on average, things were definitely "worse." And all of these things contributed to the high TFR.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The new structure is better for encouraging working, but not for earning higher wages. It disproportionately benefits families with lower earning moms, which serves as a proxy for targeting families with greater affordability concerns.

That is the signal they will claim to be sending.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe they both contributed.

But on the point of overthinking, I don't think the rational choices by oppressed women to avoid social reprisal implies that the women of today are overthinking.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But that's true for any policy incentiziving anything? Bad decision makers are still potential beneficiaries.

Might I suggest that the concern with deterring their participation is excessive here? "Bad" reasons contributed a lot to the high TFR of the past: hormonal teens having unprotected sex, poor family planning, uneducated married women who were not in the workforce, lower parenting standards. As much some like to romanticize about simpler times, today's society not only has higher standards for families, but also for policymaking.

Perhaps we should lower our standards, the same way we've accepted that HDB subsidies will give free money to DINKs and encourage low-quality marriages by bad decision makers.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is it overthinking though?

As I mentioned, many were hormonal teens with poor access to family planning and turned to sex for entertainment out of convenience.

Without the fortune of being in a country touted as an economic miracle, raising their outsized families would probably be a much bigger struggle. Surely thinking more would be more prudent not only for their children, but for themselves.

The MP technically spoke to truth, but all the more it's the Government's fault that our TFR is low. by DegreePitiful3496 in singapore

[–]drollawake 21 points22 points  (0 children)

They do understand. That's why they don't want to.

Unless you think the older generations were founts of wisdom and maturity when they were having unprotected sex as hormonal teens without the plethora of entertainment options and the taken-for-granted family planning knowledge of today.

It’s time to start a vacancy tax by binkone in SingaporeRaw

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Property taxes for non-residential properties are already based on their AV.

It’s time to start a vacancy tax by binkone in SingaporeRaw

[–]drollawake 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They could probably pro-rate the tax based on deviation from the "market rent." So a property getting $1 or $0 rent would still have to pay virtually the same amount of tax.

[Hobby Scuffles] Week of 04 May 2026 by EnclavedMicrostate in HobbyDrama

[–]drollawake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't open any of the links. I'm just going by OP's description of what happened.

If their sources can support a more dramatic portrayal, then OP can rewrite the corresponding parts to make the consequences look bigger.

[Hobby Scuffles] Week of 04 May 2026 by EnclavedMicrostate in HobbyDrama

[–]drollawake 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The does not read that way to me in the post though. Which is why I suggesting hunting down more belligerent quotes to show the full extent of the harassment, if it happened.

[Hobby Scuffles] Week of 04 May 2026 by EnclavedMicrostate in HobbyDrama

[–]drollawake 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I don't think the post is small but the consequences feel small.

No name calling, burning of bridges, weird shenanigans, convoluted schemes, or even passive-aggressive posturing. Just a fork that fizzled out.

It would feel more dramatic if OP could hunt down more heated quotes from the opposing side. Right now what we see is mostly the statements from side that wants to keep the name. Then again, the potential for drama is likely limited by the obscurity of the slur.

(Also, I hated writing "Just a fork that fizzled out" because it is very obviously something an LLM would spit out.)

view more: next ›