Ahead of my book launch in KL this Saturday, Malaysia’s New Straits Times (NST) has published an excerpt from my book, Floating on a Malayan Breeze, today.
Over the past few weeks, NUS Press, one of my co-publishers, and I had been lobbying the Malaysian media channels, trying to get them to feature us. Last week, NST confirmed the passage they would like to run.
When I saw which one they chose, I almost fell off my chair laughing. It’s the bit where I discuss Singapore’s flawed population policies and Lee Kuan Yew’s belief in genetic determinism. Of course, NST has also cut out the bits of the passage where I talk about Malaysia.
I’m very happy that they chose this passage. It’s one of my favourites. But it’s also quite reflective of Malaysia’s mainstream media–delighted to see a Singaporean asking tough questions of his country! I suppose it would have been politically impossible for them to run one of the passages where I scrutinise Malaysian policies. In any case, I’m sure the Malaysian audience would appreciate this more–so, from a purely commercial/marketing point of view, a good passage to attract Malaysians to my book launch this Saturday.
You can read the edited extract that NST has run on their website here or on this PDF file: NST Nov 5
Or you can read the full original passage from my book below. This is from pp. 237-40 of the book:
Throughout our journey, we met Malaysians, rural and urban, who couldn’t believe that we were still single, at the grand old age of 27. As far as they were concerned, we had not planned our life well. We had not given enough priority to starting a family.
Do we Singaporeans value family life less than Malaysians? Quite possibly. After numerous conversations about girlfriends, marriage and children, my sense is that there are cultural and developmental reasons for this.
My anecdotal evidence suggests that Malays treasure big families and family time more than Chinese and Indians. Many Malays I met, including Isa and Kamal, are extremely proud of their big families. Much of their life revolves around their extended families.
I found this to be less so for the Indians, even less for Chinese. This is not to say that Chinese and Indians don’t care for their families, just simply that having a big family, and maintaining close ties with the extended family, seems less a priority than it is for Malays.
When we were cycling through Terengganu, we stopped at a tiny kampung for a breather, and two very old Malay men immediately chatted us up. They were certain that all the differences between Malaysia and Singapore could be summed up in a neat parable.
Orang Melayu, bini dulu, baru cari harta.
Orang Cina, cari harta, baru bini.
Malays find a wife first, and then wealth.
Chinese find wealth first, and then a wife.
It is interesting to compare total fertility rates—the average number of children a woman is expected to have—among the different ethnic groups in the two countries.
In 2010, Malaysia’s total fertility rates were: 1.5 for Chinese, 1.7 for Indians and 2.6 for Malays. Singapore’s were: 1.02 for Chinese, 1.13 for Indians and 1.65 for Malays.
Thus, in both Malaysia and Singapore, Malays have the highest total fertility rates among the three major ethnic groups. There could be cultural and economic reasons for this. In both countries, the Malays have lower average household incomes than the Chinese and Indians. As incomes rise, people tend to have fewer kids.
This would partly explain why Singapore’s fertility rates are today so low. This is a socio-economic phenomenon the world over, particularly with the other East Asian Tigers—Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan—who have all recorded torrid economic growth alongside plummeting fertility. (Similarly, the fertility rate in Malaysia’s more developed states, such as Penang and Selangor, is lower than other parts of the country.)
What is most surprising, perhaps, is that by 2010 the total fertility rate of Singapore’s Malays was almost as low as Malaysia’s Chinese. Malay fertility rates in Singapore have dropped drastically from 2.54 in 2000 to 1.65 in 2010.
Perhaps there is something unique about Singapore’s pressure-cooker, rat-race, materialist society that has deterred young couples from having children. It is expensive to bring up children in Singapore, particularly with all the extra tuition, expensive pre-school classes, and other personal improvement programmes that parents today deem necessary.
But government policy has also greatly influenced Singaporeans’ family values. In Singapore, love and procreation have become somewhat manufactured; transformed from individual decisions and responsibilities into a national obsession. The government has indelibly shaped every Singaporean’s conception of love, marriage and children.
In the 1970s, fearful of a population explosion, our government told people to “Stop at 2”. As expected, we followed orders. By the early 1980s, it became clear that we were not replacing ourselves sufficiently and so, in a 180-degree turn, the government started to promote bigger families. Tax breaks were offered to parents who had a third child. It didn’t make much of a difference.
By 2005, our total fertility rate had slumped to 1.26, well below 2, the “replacement rate” required to maintain a stable population. Our government, desperate, pulled out all the stops: more tax breaks, longer maternity leave, and vociferous public campaigns.
Almost from the day he stepped into office, our prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong, has been urging Singaporeans to make babies. In the space of one generation, the Singaporean family psyche has been switched from big families to “Stop at 2” and back to big families again.
However, our government has tried to manipulate the population in a much more classist fashion—encouraging university graduates to marry other graduates rather than non-graduates. This reflects Lee Kuan Yew’s belief in genetic determinism.
In 1967, he said that about 5 per cent of the population “are more than ordinarily endowed physically and mentally and in whom we must extend our limited and slender resources …” Later, in 1969, he worried that “less economically productive people in the community are reproducing themselves at rates higher than the rest.”
Presumably, our government believed it could improve Singapore’s gene pool. In 1984 it implemented a programme that tried to increase the fertility of university educated women while offering subsidies for the voluntary sterilisation of poor and uneducated parents.
Singapore even set up a couple of government agencies to further this agenda. The Social Development Unit (SDU) was formed in 1984 to promote marriages among graduate singles, while Social Development Services (SDS) was set up in 1985 to promote marriages among non-graduate singles.
Sometimes it seems like our eugenics policies were implemented in a bygone era rife with classism. Actually, it was less than 30 years ago. We grew up in a society where eugenics influenced love.
Lee Kuan Yew’s views on this haven’t changed much. In 2008, he told 700-odd delegates at a Human Capital Summit that Singaporean graduates who marry nongraduates “will worry if their children will make it to the university”.
In Singapore, something so natural, so carnal, so innately human as love is transformed into a more structured, formal process. It seems like the only thing the government has yet to do is teach Singaporeans how to give head.
PAP fans love to boast about the party’s forward thinking and successful longterm planning. But when its history is eventually written (by somebody neutral), the PAP’s misguided population policies of the 1970s–80s will tarnish its legacy. Many of Singapore’s current socio-economic problems—including inequality, public transport squeezes and xenophobia—have their roots in our low birth-rate, and the government’s attempt to address it with sudden, unsustainably high immigration.
Put another way, when it comes to population policies, the current PAP leadership has created new problems by trying to correct the old problems that are partly the doing of the 1970s–80s PAP leadership.
Malaysia’s government, on the other hand, does not try to manipulate its population dynamics so meticulously. However, Malaysia’s religious police do frequently try to peer into the private love lives of Muslims in the country, to ensure that unmarried couples are not engaging in illicit physical activity—what is known as khalwat, literally “close proximity”. These khalwat raids can be quite sudden and brutal—Islamic officers are known to barge into people’s houses and rooms, looking for immoral activity.
This points to one of the great paradoxes of Malaysian society. The Malay Muslims are afforded special economic rights, but they cannot enjoy certain personal and social freedoms such as the ability to drink and engage in physical relations before marriage. On the other hand, the Chinese and Indian non-Muslims are considered second-class citizens politically, but then are able to lead much freer lives than the Malay Muslims ever can.
It does appear, however, that the Singapore government’s constant intrusions into the bedroom may have been counterproductive. At best, they have failed to achieve their goals. At worst, love, marriage and sex, glorious expressions of the human condition, have been reduced to numbers, policies and projections. Procreation becomes a mechanical response, a “national service”, akin to paying taxes.
Which begs the question: have we all spent enough time thinking about what makes us happy? For those of us who want huge families, have we really thought hard enough about what else we could be doing with our time if we had a smaller family? Conversely, for those of us who want tiny families, are we missing out on one of life’s basic joys?
It’s interesting to compare this passage to the one that Singapore’s The Straits Times (ST) chose to run a couple of weeks back. Incidentally, ST had asked me to select a passage for their extract. NST read through the whole book and chose one they liked.
11 thoughts on “Singapore’s population policies: Book extract in the New Straits Times, Nov 5th 2012”
From the NST journalist:
I worked in Singapore for 3 years with Asiaweek and remember all those “family” policies well. My favourite “Straits Times” headline from back then: “Let’s have spontaneous fun–and here’s how!”
For the Chinese, economic reasons IMO determines, more than anything else, the size of the family. How can we forget the large families that our parents and grand parents and great great grand parents used to have.
The norm before lky’s infamous ‘stop at two’ policies was to have 4,5 even 6 children. My parents’ family including them, is just one short of a fielded soccer team. The Singaporeans mental horizon of what constitute an ideal family size is constrained by the many policies and disincentives devised by the lky govt to drastically cut population growth. It is because of lky’s shortcuts that he used in solving his immediate political and social challenges by means of policies, esp. the disincentives, that started the down trend to where we are TFR-wise.
For all his pragmatism, cunning and wisdom in solving Singapore’s challenges in his time as PM he had left a stubborn legacy of not questioning or gainsaying the top political boss in the Civil Service. The top civil servants have learnt not to tell the big boss that he is wrong, that he has no clothes, on pains of being abruptly replaced/demoted at the drop of a hat, if they value their jobs and careers. Which top aspiring civil servant wouldn’t? Perhaps, it had been this same fear that had prevented the top statisticians and officials in charge of population planning not to tell the emperor that the TFR was approaching the road of no return. In a sense, Singapore under lky, got what it deserved – a country which looks grand on the outside but pretty bleak and hollow inside.
And lky being lky would never admit a flaw as serious as this in his lifetime. As you said, his judgement would have to come after he has passed on. No amount of whitewashing by his son or members of the extended family or people who have benefited from supporting his party can stop the inevitable truth from coming out.
On the bright side of this rapidly falling population issue, is an ingrained Asian value of filial piety, particularly of Chinese society. It is simply that of passing on our family line.We praise our forefathers who toiled and prospered eventually. So can the young ones of marriageable age should not be afraid and do what come naturally.
The PAP govt should be bold enough to come out with a blueprint to sell to one and all that this island nation is worth sinking your roots for the future generations to come.
Interesting that you didnt choose that NST passage for the ST
Hi jayjay, ST gave me very specific suggestions on what kind of passage they wanted. More about travel and culture.
not to be a prick or anything but therefore isnt this kind of of misleading then if ST had actually corralled you?
“It’s interesting to compare this passage to the one that Singapore’s The Straits Times (ST) chose to run a couple of weeks back. Incidentally, ST had asked me to select a passage for their extract. NST read through the whole book and chose one they liked.”
Yes, fine. I should have mentioned that ST gave me suggestions on what kind of passage would appeal to their readership. Sorry. I wasn’t intentionally trying to mislead.
Alamak! Gajah dalam bilek is lah di orang nak belikan undi
Avary vote vangan ithalam chiyane
Sorry … that’s me not wanting to be a prick or anything….
Goh Keng Swee defending the Graduate Mothers Scheme in 1984:
“Consider these figures. Last year, 60% of the students admitted to NUS were women. Over 2,000 males who qualified for pre-university chose to go to the Polytechnics. If the trend persists and 60% of our male graduates continue to marry below their education level, then only 27% of our women graduates will eventually be married to graduates. Nearly all of the remaining 73% will remain unmarried.
Consider another statistic. Graduate mothers produce nine times the number of gifted children than the general population, graduate fathers, alas, only six times. It does not now matter whether this is the result of nature or nurture, or both. Just calculate the loss to our society if three-fourths of our women graduates, some 2,200 each year, are added to the pool of unmarried. Reflect further on what we are doing.
We educate our girls to the best of their ability, and it is a good thing we do so. But to the top three-fourths, that is, those who enter the NUS, we in fact tell them what Hamlet said to Ophelia, “Get thee to a nunnery”. What sort of people are we if we consider such matters to be of no consequence?”