Statistically speaking, TFR, total fertility rate, is the average number of children born to a woman over her reproductive years (15-49yo in Singapore; I seem to recall some countries go up to 44yo) if she were subject to prevailing fertility rates. Something like that - I regret dumping that old population stats book when we moved.. Actually I didn't finish the book but I attended an illuminating lecture by the author on TFR...
Formula-wise, it's five times the sum of the number of births to women of five-year age group / number of women in same five-year age group, for the five-year age groups between 15 and 49 inclusive.
From the two statements above, you can see (or I tell you la) that the TFR is a theoretical number. But it suffices as an indicator to tell us where the trends are headed.
But it is only an indicator and one that should be read together with other population numbers and also our cultural context.
The easier one to understand is cultural context - in Singapore, the majority of kids are born after marriage but the TFR base includes women of all marital statuses. So the TFR among married women, if there is such a thing, would be slightly higher, considering that some 70% of women aged 15yo and above were ever-married.
Now, numbers. Our TFR is stated as "resident TFR". Since residents refer to citizens and PRs, I should think that the TFR is based on births to residents and on number of resident women.
We had 32,290 resident births in 2022, dropping to 30,510 in 2023 (DOS). As for resident women aged 15-49, we had 986,990 in 2022, rising to 1,001,023 in 2023 (DOS). It's expected that TFR dropped from 1.04 in 2022 to 0.97 in 2023.
Does it mean that if many more people decide to have a kid this year, the TFR will increase? Hard to say... TFR can be affected by not just the number of births but also the number of women. So if the number of women increases more than the number of births increases, the TFR can drop despite more births. Conversely, TFR can increase if the number of women decreases more than the number of births decreases! And it's possible for the number of women of reproductive age to decrease, e.g. more turned 50yo than entered 15-49yo coz ageing population.
Anyway... The number of resident births has been 30k-38k in the past 10 years, mostly decreasing y-o-y (DOS).
The number of women aged 15-49 has also been decreasing by under 10k y-o-y for most of the past 10 years. There was a large drop of 30k between 2020 and 2021, likely due to PRs leaving due to COVID? But the numbers have picked up in the last two years, by 14k-17k y-o-y (DOS).
Resident deaths stand at about 18k-25k in the past 10 years, roughly increasing y-o-y (DOS). Based on births and deaths alone, the population should increase a little each year. But the overall population increases by 18k-86k in the past 10 years, with the highest in 2022.
(At this point, I have five excel files opened, and realised I have dug a rabbit hole for myself - but I have started so I will finish, even if this becomes more and more incoherent... Nvm, I'm not behind any government policy!)
In 2022, we had 21,802 naturalised citizens and 34,493 new PRs (source). So the 86k increase must be also due to residents returning to Singapore. Now, any kids the naturalised citizens, new PRs and returning residents had before entering Singapore are not factored into the TFR calculation. (But if the kids come to Singapore too, they are included in the overall population count.)
Point is, the TFR cannot tell us everything. But there is no denying the TFR trends - people are having fewer children.
When I was working on related issues, I really dislike the Baby Bonus cash component. Or rather, I dislike how people thought of it as an incentive for having children. At the rate we’re going, I think we should not increase spending in this area to encourage people to have (more) children. Not that we do not spend - we should still support parents in child-raising coz there are those who want (or sadly, just have) children regardless of government support.
It is just difficult to fight the trend. Giving more cash or leave will not make people have (more) children. Working is hard. Not everyone can work during child care centre hours. Not everyone has access to affordable child care options. There are always things cropping up at work and with the kids, and work and kids do not arrange not to clash.
Then, housing, education and healthcare are expensive. HDB flats are smaller than before. Education and employment are more competitive than ever. Healthcare helps us live longer and hopefully more healthily but brings about my next point.
Government spending should be focused on care of the elderly. By 2030, one in four will be aged 65 and above. That's on the society level. What about at the family level?
Government spending should be focused on care of the elderly. By 2030, one in four will be aged 65 and above. That's on the society level. What about at the family level?
Now I'm not estimating for 2030.
Among ever-married women aged 50 and above in 2023, 8% had no children, 19% one, 39% two, 23% three and 11% four or more (DOS). For now, the majority still has at least two children. These children are lucky - they can spread out elderly caregiving for their parents. But over time, we can expect the numbers to shift more towards zero and one. More single children will need to bear the full weight of elderly caregiving. From the elderly perspective, more elderly will have fewer children to care for them.
Another reason for not increasing spending simply to encourage having (more) children is that, those who are not married also need support. I doubt the single/childless groups will outsize the parents but the numbers are, or will grow, significant enough such that there will be increasing pressure to support them as well.
Elderly caregiving often falls on the unmarried sibling, based on anecdotal sharing. Singles also need support, and more when there will be fewer or no siblings to help out.
In 2023, 6% of those aged 70 and above (cannot find 65yo and above) are unmarried (DOS). Again, we can expect this number to increase. In our context, singles mostly do not have children. Married or unmarried, elderly without children still need caregiving in the later years. If they are lucky, nephews and nieces, however few, may step in. This means heavier burden for the children today - they have elderly parents and elderly uncles and aunts, and for some, their own young children.
Let's not have children then, don't give birth to them only to burden them!
Then society has to step in.
First of all, I think everyone has to plan for our own caregiving in later years. You may be single or married. You may have no children or 10. Plan for yourself.
But society has to provide the infrastructure to allow individuals to plan for themselves.
Ideally, elderly can age in their own homes until they pass. But it is likely that at some point, they cannot safely live on their own. There are only a few options:
Ideally, elderly can age in their own homes until they pass. But it is likely that at some point, they cannot safely live on their own. There are only a few options:
1) Hire a live-in helper if the elderly can still communicate. MOM says employer must still have the mental capacity to be the employer. So at some point, this may not be viable.
2) Move in with children or other relatives/friends. Discuss early with your family. This can put a strain on relationships as the elderly will still need help for daily activities. As I mentioned, HDB flats are smaller these days. How can society support willing children to care for their elderly when living space is limited and there may be a need for a special bed or wheelchair?
3) Move to a nursing home. This can be costly and there may not be available spots. Sito and I plan to check into a nursing home when we can no longer take care of ourselves. I don't want to stay in my boys' homes and have them (goodness, no!) or a live-in helper wipe my wrinkly bum! But will there be good nursing homes? Will there be spots available when we need it? Can we afford it?
Any other options? I can't think of any.
Ok, kids home now. Busy so abrupt ending - just die before getting too old and weak la! But must live healthily until at least 80yo to max out CPF life ok, haha!
Note: The DOS links refer to latest data so will say different things next year but the data series can be downloaded from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment