Abstract

PIP: It has been argued that a system of incentives and disincentives to limit fertility is more balanced if it is accompanied by structural changes so that the population no longer needs large families, and this is the case in Singapore. The historical reasons for bearing many children have been undermined by state policies. Shortly after gaining independence, the new state engaged in altering the economic structure by promoting Singapore's role as a manufacturing center. The economic need for large families declined as wage labor assumed increasing importance and the agricultural sector diminished. Additionally, the state introduced well funded and widely available social services. It is the system of social services, which has removed traditional alternatives and become an essential component of the industrial lifestyle, that has been made more expensive for parents who exceed the national small family goal. A system of fertility limitation measures can be viewed as equitable if all persons are equally affected. Measures may seem less balanced if they unduly affect parents of 1 social class, especially the poor, or particular racial or ethnic groups. Singapore's disincentives affect the poor more than the middle class. A system of penalties against high birthrates can be seen as more humanitarian if those who do not comply do not suffer unduly. In Singapore parents who bear many children pay higher hospital delivery fees and may have only limited choice of the school in which they may enroll their children. Yet, all children obtain a place in school, and the cost of a hospital birth is well under half the average working class man's monthly wage. The measures themselves depend on individual acquiescence. There is no mass peer group pressure or public ridicule to coerce people to limit their family size. Agents of the state do the enforcing, but lack of strict organizational mechanisms limit a thorough assessment of parental compliance. The ethics of population disincentives is also related to the procedure by which they were passed. In Singapore access to contraceptive services at nominal cost was widened in the 1960s and in the early 1970s laws regarding abortion and sterilization were greatly liberalized. When fertility disincentive measures become law, it is important to note the level of public debate and the alternative measures offered. In Singapore disincentives were organized by the Family Planning and Population Board. The measures were debated in Parliament. As the people were not given a broad forum to debate the measures, Singapore's disincentive program can be seen as falling short along procedural lines.