It's your 'duty' to procreate - What a load of rubbish
-
hamster's can give themselves blow jobsOriginally posted by HENG@:now i feel like a hamster...
but anyone think that DR ONG's statements would affect the GE??
and btw his clearing of the air doesn't seem to have cleared up anything, looks more like taiji again -
the last time lky raised the "graduate mother" eugenics program, it cost him plenty of votes...Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:hamster's can give themselves blow jobs
but anyone think that DR ONG's statements would affect the GE??
and btw his clearing of the air doesn't seem to have cleared up anything, looks more like taiji again
its never a good idea for the gov't to interfere in something as personal as this. this is gonna cost him plenty if that ward was ever contested. -
IF, our government have done such a good job in governing SIngapore, there wouldn't be such things as Baby Shortages, or the recent change in Mother Tongue subject in schools, and a hosts of previous adjustments.
I mean, why would people leave SIngapore if it is so good here?? True that I can walk around after midnight quite safely, but it is getting harder by the year to get by. Livelihood here for many, is getting gloomier and gloomier.
So, what babies? -
Its very cliche when all you can offer foreigners are the same old stuff.."the streets are safe..blah blah blah.."Brings back the old saying, a dog can eat well and be well-groomed in Singapore, but he can Bark in Jakarta.
-
ok la.. to be fair.. the govt did a pretty good job la..
i mean, being suddenly cut of from the kns malaysia, to be declared independence.. tt was one of singapore's darkest hour.. its like an infant cut off from parents to be independent. and its becuz of the govt, singapore has survived 37 years. if the govt consist of ppl like saddam. how long u tink singapore will last?
obviously the govt has flaws, they are but human. i'm not saying i totally agree with whatever crap they say once in a while, and i enjoy making fun of the govenment sometimes. but i tink u guys should look at the big picture. the govt has led singapore so far. it's not that bad a job, trust them a little longer la -
question: are u sure they saw separation as a bad thing?Originally posted by dumbdumb!:ok la.. to be fair.. the govt did a pretty good job la..
i mean, being suddenly cut of from the kns malaysia, to be declared independence.. tt was one of singapore's darkest hour.. its like an infant cut off from parents to be independent. and its becuz of the govt, singapore has survived 37 years. if the govt consist of ppl like saddam. how long u tink singapore will last?
i'm thinking that if u asked the old pple who were around and aware at that time, they probably didn't like being part of malaysia...
the promises of a common market didn't come about, u felt like them northerners were "taking over", and things weren't all that rosey...
i mean... i wasn't there... i dunno... but what u hear is all from the old man and his memoir (memoir, not history) ... it seems to fit in very well into the politics of vulnerability if u ask me...
but i'm just cynical... don't have to take me seriously
-
Once in a while is not so bad, but when you have a track record of bad judgment call that stretch back to the decision to join Malaysia, Family Planning, Second Language, High Cost of Property Ownerships, and a long list of 'crap' policies - all implemented without any opposition, it must come to a point when 'enough must be enough'.Originally posted by dumbdumb!:ok la.. to be fair.. the govt did a pretty good job la..
i mean, being suddenly cut of from the kns malaysia, to be declared independence.. tt was one of singapore's darkest hour.. its like an infant cut off from parents to be independent. and its becuz of the govt, singapore has survived 37 years. if the govt consist of ppl like saddam. how long u tink singapore will last?
obviously the govt has flaws, they are but human. i'm not saying i totally agree with whatever crap they say once in a while, and i enjoy making fun of the govenment sometimes. but i tink u guys should look at the big picture. the govt has led singapore so far. it's not that bad a job, trust them a little longer la
More so when bad judgment is made as a result of arrogant position taken with the decision made on the basis of 'I KNOW BETTER THAN YOU'.
No, ‘dumb-dumb!’ - 'being suddenly cut of from the kns malaysia, to be declared independence.. tt was one of singapore's darkest hour.. ' - was NOT THE DARKEST HOUR for Singapore.
Only SM LKY cried with despair – and on TV – when Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia.
There was euphoria amongst the older Chinese, Indian and Eurasian population – except for the uncertain apprehension felt by our Malay communities, which was understandable.
The concern and apprehensions of the Singapore Malay community was immediately addressed, with reassurances given by LKY that Singapore will show the way in EQUALITY regardless of Race, Religion, Language – (this credit must be given to LKY).
The general feelings during the period when Singapore was in Malaysia was that there was UNEQUAL and LOB SIDED contribution and distribution of Wealth.
Singapore being the most developed state in Malaysia, had to HAND OVER ALL of its Revenue to the Federal Government, and in return got back a miserly amount to meet the budget of Singapore – which became only a small state in a Federation of Malaysia that consist of 13 states in Peninsula Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah PLUS Singapore.
Besides the quarrel over the unequal contribution and distribution of wealth, the general Singapore Population - especially the Chinese, Indians and the Eurasians – felt that the Federal Government was giving too much development emphasis in the Federal Territories and in Peninsular Malaysia; as well as the aggressive Federal Government program to advance the interests of the Malay Community and Islam.
Large amount was invested to build mosques based on opulent designs, and Malays were given priority in overseas scholarships that were handed out on baseless criteria.
This unfortunate attitude of the Federal Government was a torn in the relationship that it had with the 3-S states of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah – with each of these 3-S states having better economic performance and are richer than total output of the 13 states of Peninsular Malaysia.
Prior to Singapore becoming independent, the 3-S states went so far as to plan to secede from Malaysia, and form a separate Nation of Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah.
SM LKY ridiculed this approach and laughed at the idea of a country that is separated by a large expanse of sea, which is the territorial waters of Malaysia and Indonesia. -
Based on previous governmental debacles when an MP or civil servant said anything stupid, you should be able to predict Dr. Ong's political fate. If within this week, no big-shot minister steps in to provide vocal support for our embattled little idiot, then Aljunied GRC will have a new face in 2007.
That, I'm looking forward to.Originally posted by CX:the last time lky raised the "graduate mother" eugenics program, it cost him plenty of votes...
its never a good idea for the gov't to interfere in something as personal as this. this is gonna cost him plenty if that ward was ever contested. -
(Got this idea from the movie last evening on channel
Why don't the govt implement the same kind of policy as mentioned in the movie?
ie. forbidding employers from retrenching or sacking pregnant female staff.
Even though the job market is picking up, many companies are still (so-called) restructuring. I suppose married women who are working will be dying to get pregnant in order to keep the rice bowl.
I'm not saying that this is a fantastic idea that the govt should go for. Just thinking that it is going to work. But of course, in the long run, the women will suffer as they will plan for children for the wrong reasons. -
The problem here is that this would tie up the hands of companies in terms of keeping their labor pool and wages flexible. Such restrictions would only add to the already high cost of doing business in Singapore. In the long-run, this gives added imperative for companies to either decamp to another country or to avoid Singapore altogether.
Furthermore, such a suggestion would not really be socially desirable since it does not engender an emotional need for procreation but stimluates a financial one. The child and the family suffer in the end.
Mandated policies to "encourage" birth rates have almost always failed in developed countries. This is a socio-economic fact that I think govts cannot successfully overcome through "baby policies". Immigration is the only other alternative. However, in Singapore, national service becomes an immovable impediment. We're in effect stuck here hence the govt's mania with the baby issue.Originally posted by Honeybunz:(Got this idea from the movie last evening on channel
Why don't the govt implement the same kind of policy as mentioned in the movie?
ie. forbidding employers from retrenching or sacking pregnant female staff.
Even though the job market is picking up, many companies are still (so-called) restructuring. I suppose married women who are working will be dying to get pregnant in order to keep the rice bowl.
I'm not saying that this is a fantastic idea that the govt should go for. Just thinking that it is going to work. But of course, in the long run, the women will suffer as they will plan for children for the wrong reasons. -
Demosthenes, while I wholehearted agree that economic and monetary concerns should not be the driving force behind having children, we have to admit that, like it or not, it is one of the driving forces between childlessness or not. Thats not what I'll have a child for, but we must accept the fact that it is for many, and work on from there.Originally posted by Demosthenes:The problem here is that this would tie up the hands of companies in terms of keeping their labor pool and wages flexible. Such restrictions would only add to the already high cost of doing business in Singapore. In the long-run, this gives added imperative for companies to either decamp to another country or to avoid Singapore altogether.
Furthermore, such a suggestion would not really be socially desirable since it does not engender an emotional need for procreation but stimluates a financial one. The child and the family suffer in the end.
Mandated policies to "encourage" birth rates have almost always failed in developed countries. This is a socio-economic fact that I think govts cannot successfully overcome through "baby policies". Immigration is the only other alternative. However, in Singapore, national service becomes an immovable impediment. We're in effect stuck here hence the govt's mania with the baby issue.
As for the concerns for companies and labour pool, while that might be true, we also have to ask ourselves, whats more important to us here? As the articles I've posted in the "Baby Problem: What About the Employers?" thread suggests, whats needed is a radical shakeup of everything from Employers mindsets (forced upon them or not), as well as the Employment Act, as well as monetary and other incentives to get a tangible return in our attempts to encourage reproduction.
Unfortunately, despite all the talk, I've a feeling that our programme will focus on the latter and not the former. Which as the articles from ST shows, will lead to failure such as those in Italy and Austria -
As a happily unmarried person, I am not aware of the actual tax rebates/financial incentives given to parents with children. Can someone enlighten me with a table of the incentives? It would be good for me to know actually.
The reason I'm asking is because I want to have a gauge of how price elastic (or inelastic as the case may be) our citizens' demand for children is. Do these financial incentives really prod our citizens into procreating or is the cost of raising kids still too high?
The bottleneck in the whole scheme of this baby debate is the mindset of our maturing and economically wealthy population. The financial lever required to successfully push our career-motivated and independent-minded citizens into procreating would be far too exorbitant. Such dollar-denominated policies have unworkable limits. Even soft-dollar incentives like extended maternity leave have not demonstrated marked successes of any form. (e.g. Germany's labor laws legislate maternity leave at a whopping 2 years! And they still have one of the lowest birth rates in the world!) It is the mindset and psychology that needs to be targeted in order to bring about success in our quest for increasing birth rates.Originally posted by Viper52:Demosthenes, while I wholehearted agree that economic and monetary concerns should not be the driving force behind having children, we have to admit that, like it or not, it is one of the driving forces between childlessness or not. Thats not what I'll have a child for, but we must accept the fact that it is for many, and work on from there.
As for the concerns for companies and labour pool, while that might be true, we also have to ask ourselves, whats more important to us here? As the articles I've posted in the "Baby Problem: What About the Employers?" thread suggests, whats needed is a radical shakeup of everything from Employers mindsets (forced upon them or not), as well as the Employment Act, as well as monetary and other incentives to get a tangible return in our attempts to encourage reproduction.
Unfortunately, despite all the talk, I've a feeling that our programme will focus on the latter and not the former. Which as the articles from ST shows, will lead to failure such as those in Italy and Austria -
I read today's Straits Times, about few couples achieved the 3 babies as the ideal number to have. Hey, I mean did our government sit down on their expensive chairs and workout the sums on their expensive tables, as to how much a couple or an individual man has to be earning in order to support 3 babies who will eventually become 3 university undergrads???
Ways and means to make a living, is becoming extremely limited and even scarce. They talk about people who don't have children to support themselves who may in future become national liabilities, what about those who over estimated their earning capabilities and who ended up needing financial assitance to support their family and kids???
Allo, anyone upstairs????
Ok, fine, so go and try getting foreigners to bear babies instead. Let's see where that leads to...... -
Let me put in my two cents worth....there is actually some sense in the government trying to get more babies....and it is in fact a very difficult task.
Why should there be more babies, you ask?? Let me cite u a simple case. I hv currently 2 babies...but in my husband's family of three siblings who r married, we r the only ones brave enuff to hv babies. Sometimes we joke and say that when we r old...my 2 babies will hv to support us and his uncles and aunties. You may argue that why should they support their uncles and aunties, since they were the ones who chose not to hv children anyway, furthermore I would nvr expect my children to support me, I m already planning for my retirement btw.
But come to think of it, they would be supporting their uncles and aunties indirectly. As we grow older, we would require more healthcare and furthermore our earning power would depreciate. Currently, for those who are working, how many of us can give our parents sufficient money to let them live comfortably? I m lucky since both my parents as well as my father in law is working at the moment. But my father and my in law are retiring soon, so I worry whether I can contribute more to both sides families.
But that is not the main issue ....When I think of my two children, I hv to remind myself not to be a burden to them when I grow older so I actively try to save more for retirement and buy health, disabilty insurance to cover myself. But I also know, there r many working adults esp. those who do not hv children who do not do that. So when they grow old and start falling ill and do not hv enough for retirement and healthcare who has to take care of them. Welfare from the govt...many may say, for these people hv did their economic duty to the country in their younger days. But where is all the money going to come from??.....The state treasury....but where does the state treasury's money come from...people's income tax....and....the income tax....comes from our current children's pockets. So if the ratio of young : old is now about 3:2, what about 20 years down the road, if less people reproduce....2:6??? Just imagine the amt of tax my children has to pay...to sustain an ageing nation.
Give the govt a break, it is not easy. We all know that Singapore must maintain competitiveness amidst competition from M'sia, China and India...else eventually all the MNCs will move out of Singapore and then there will be more problem in the job market...so that is why alot of us r workin ourselves to dead. So we also find that we do not really hv enuff family time ( I always feel so guilty about not spending enuff time with my children.)....so many choose not to hv children...why bring them to the world when we do hv time n money to take care of them. But we really need the children...in economic sense for the country to survive....So really the govt is hving a difficult time balancing both. So how??? If u were the govt, what would u do? Very easy for us to sit back and criticise. So if I let u be govt now.....and ask u to balance the equation....would u do it?? I think many would not. So give them a break...I think many pple in govt already trying their best...we r afterall humans. -
heehee i have better idea: ban condoms & abortion surely have pletty of babies ...Originally posted by HENG@:how about this:
want us to have more children? sure. stop paying the ministers, the MPs and give that money to the citizens to have children.
sometimes i wonder why so many parks in s'pore is soooo dark??
get the idea?? -
Lyling, good post on the connundrum facing Singapore, Singaporeans and the Government of Singapore. However, one important equation you've left out, is that of the cost of living in Singapore. We all know the reasons why we need to have kids. But the question still remains, how can we afford it? The article I'll post in my next post is a simple calculation on the econmic viability of having a child in Singapore. Its simplistic, yes I know, but for the sake of this particular issue, it'll have to do for now.
Bear in mind, median household income is deceptive, it is almost certain that the numbers of those who earn above the median are a lot less than those who earn below the median. -
From: TalkNoAction 29-Mar 15:23
To: ALL 1 of 42
44561.1
Pg. 15 Straits Times today. Median household income
in Singapore is $3600.
Income per year per household = $43K.
From Sunday Times:
Cost of raising child until 21 yrs old = $275K (no frills)
Cost of 3 rm flat = $300K. (incl. renovation + loan interest)
Cost of basic necessities per year = $20K (cost of house already
factored, this cost for food, medical care, utilities, clothes,
supporting aged parents, public transport, conservancy fees,
newspapers etc).
Suppose working life is 35 years, 2 child family:
Total income during that period = $1.5M ($43Kx35).
Total cost during that period = $20K x 35 + $275K x 2 + $300K =
$1.55M
The average Singapore household after slogging for 35 long years will have zero savings and a debt of $50K. This is assuming no holidays are taken, no loss of job, no major illness, no car. To assume that a person can hold a decent paying job past age 40 is also a big question mark.
So at age 60 an average Singapore retire with nothing to live on. So those who have done their maths decide not to have children. This will save about $550K. This is not even enough to retire in 35 years time - the bare minimum being $1M. There is simply no choice, those who have children and have not done their financial planning are being totally irresponsible and are heading for ruin. This is a time bomb waiting to explode.
Why is the PAP trying to trap Singaporeans to have more children knowing that the median household income is insufficient? Why isn't the government telling the truth financial situation in households and why are they totally unconcerned that most Singaporeans will have no money to retire if they have children. For heaven's sake, they can't even improve the job situation here yet they want people to have more children.
The real answer is the PAP cares only about its own financial health. Having more people means they can tax more and can suck more from the populace. Even if you end up financially ruined and begging on the streets, the PAP simply doesn't care. -
From: TalkNoAction 29-Mar 15:23
To: ALL 1 of 42
44561.1
Pg. 15 Straits Times today. Median household income
in Singapore is $3600.
Income per year per household = $43K.
From Sunday Times:
Cost of raising child until 21 yrs old = $275K (no frills)
Cost of 3 rm flat = $300K. (incl. renovation + loan interest)
Cost of basic necessities per year = $20K (cost of house already
factored, this cost for food, medical care, utilities, clothes,
supporting aged parents, public transport, conservancy fees,
newspapers etc).
Suppose working life is 35 years, 2 child family:
Total income during that period = $1.5M ($43Kx35).
Total cost during that period = $20K x 35 + $275K x 2 + $300K =
$1.55M
The average Singapore household after slogging for 35 long years will have zero savings and a debt of $50K. This is assuming no holidays are taken, no loss of job, no major illness, no car. To assume that a person can hold a decent paying job past age 40 is also a big question mark.
So at age 60 an average Singapore retire with nothing to live on. So those who have done their maths decide not to have children. This will save about $550K. This is not even enough to retire in 35 years time - the bare minimum being $1M. There is simply no choice, those who have children and have not done their financial planning are being totally irresponsible and are heading for ruin. This is a time bomb waiting to explode.
Why is the PAP trying to trap Singaporeans to have more children knowing that the median household income is insufficient? Why isn't the government telling the truth financial situation in households and why are they totally unconcerned that most Singaporeans will have no money to retire if they have children. For heaven's sake, they can't even improve the job situation here yet they want people to have more children.
The real answer is the PAP cares only about its own financial health. Having more people means they can tax more and can suck more from the populace. Even if you end up financially ruined and begging on the streets, the PAP simply doesn't care. -
This part is absolute rubbish lyling. Studies have shown that companies having pro-family policies (as opposed to getting employees to work till they drop) actually do better and save on costs.Originally posted by lyling:Give the govt a break, it is not easy. We all know that Singapore must maintain competitiveness amidst competition from M'sia, China and India...else eventually all the MNCs will move out of Singapore and then there will be more problem in the job market...so that is why alot of us r workin ourselves to dead. So we also find that we do not really hv enuff family time
I stand by my opinion that monetary incentives/longer maternity leave to urge Singaporean policies must be backed up by pro-family/pro-employee changes to the Employment Act. These would include guarantees for mothers to get their jobs back, increased leeway for mothers to sue companies for wrongful dismissal etc. No matter how much we give would-be parents, it will come to nought if they fear for their jobs and livelihood because of the skewed labour policies in the name of attracting MNCs/increasing competitiveness. See the following article in the next post... -
Survey: Big returns await family-friendly companies
Study of 11 firms finds that every $1 invested in work-life programmes return $1.68 and staff are happier and more loyal
By M. Nirmala
THE stork is kept busy in companies with family-friendly policies.
At SP Consulting (International), nine of its 13 staff are married and, between them, have 20 children.
A dozen of these babies were born after their parents joined the 12-year-old company, a happy development that prompted managing director Lim Meng Wee to quip: 'We have more than replaced ourselves!'
Trusting his employees to deliver results on set targets, he allows them to work from home or come in late.
The company was one of 11 surveyed in a study by the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF), which found that companies with family-friendly policies reaped many intangible and tangible results.
Workers' morale went up and so did productivity and financial bottom lines, according to the study released yesterday.
Companies that were surveyed included Merck Sharp and Dohme, NTUC Income and Yokogawa Electric Asia.
The study found that for every $1 the companies invested in work-life programmes, their average gain was $1.68.
This figure was derived after the companies worked out how their revenue went up and costs were saved when pro-family policies were introduced.
On the cost front, for example, the companies looked at the expense of filling a vacant position, which could come up to half the annual salary of the post, compared to being flexible and retaining the worker.
Their employees also appreciated their moves.
Three-quarters of those polled said family-friendly practices have made their lives as parents and workers easier to manage.
Almost two-thirds said pro-family policies persuaded them to continue working for the organisation.
For example, NTUC Income fixed its attrition rate many years ago by allowing not just married women to work flexible hours but its singles as well.
'Some singles can't wake up early if they are studying at night or partying,' said Ms Cynthia Chin, Income's human resource manager.
These employees can start work later at 9am or 9.30am, instead of at 8.30am like the rest.
Based on the survey findings, SNEF, together with NTUC, the Manpower Ministry and the Ministry of Community Development and Sports (MCDS), has drawn up a road map for employers who want to be enlightened, family-friendly bosses.
Included are guidelines on how flexible work arrangements can be implemented.
Other suggestions include creating opportunities for children to visit their parents' offices, providing space at the workplace for new mothers to pump their milk, or even offering laundry pick-up services.
SNEF's executive director Koh Juan Kiat said the ideas will encourage employers to be more focused on how they can help their workers without fearing that targets will not be met.
'It can be a win-win situation,' he said.
Convinced that companies can be persuaded to adopt the guidelines, the SNEF will use the survey results to persuade companies that flexi-work need not compromise the company's bottom line but can, in fact, boost its productivity.
The survey results were presented at a work-life practices seminar at Orchard Hotel. Speaking at the event, Community Development Minister Yaacob Ibrahim urged firms to heed the example of those polled and be reassured that providing a better work-life balance can enhance their competitive edge.
'The sooner we dive into this, the faster we will see results. -
If u ask me... I don't really see people around tat got 0 savings after they worked for 35 years... The problem is u use an average income for household yet state an expenditure of a above average citizens.
3 rm flat in ulu places: 220k (sengkang)
cost of 1 child: 201.6K (800 per month)
expenditure: 18.25k ($50 per day)
so total = 1.262 million
so still have some saving of 238k which seems to be the norm these days. Another bonus is the house worth about 220k is yours.
But then again... I admit life really seems to be particularly bad for poor people in singapore... -
The article is not mine, its a cross post from another forum...Originally posted by stupidissmart:If u ask me... I don't really see people around tat got 0 savings after they worked for 35 years... The problem is u use an average income for household yet state an expenditure of a above average citizens.
3 rm flat in ulu places: 220k (sengkang)
cost of 1 child: 201.6K (800 per month)
expenditure: 18.25k ($50 per day)
so total = 1.262 million
so still have some saving of 238k which seems to be the norm these days. Another bonus is the house worth about 220k is yours.
But then again... I admit life really seems to be particularly bad for poor people in singapore...
The house is ours? Read the rules carefully my friend. The house is NEVER yours. 99 years!
Also, lets not forget, gahment target is 2 kids per family. So you will still be short of gahment expectations if you have 1. Take away the cost of the 2nd kid and you'll have 38K left. Now thats a substantial retirement fund
220K for HDB is the base cost. Reno loan? Interest on home and reno loan? Adding 80K to that is a low-side estimate.
And how about contributing to looking after aged parents? The original poster's calculation was:Pg. 15 Straits Times today. Median household income
His estimation of $20K per year works out to $54 a day. Slightly more than your $50 estimate but reasonable considering the factors listed. Assuming the cost per kid (on absolutely no frills) is $200K per year not $275K, the total cost for 2 kids (gov't target) is still $1.4 million.
in Singapore is $3600.
Income per year per household = $43K.
From Sunday Times:
Cost of raising child until 21 yrs old = $275K (no frills)
Cost of 3 rm flat = $300K. (incl. renovation + loan interest)
Cost of basic necessities per year = $20K (cost of house already
factored, this cost for food, medical care, utilities, clothes,
supporting aged parents, public transport, conservancy fees,
newspapers etc).
Suppose working life is 35 years, 2 child family:
Total income during that period = $1.5M ($43Kx35).
Total cost during that period = $20K x 35 + $275K x 2 + $300K =
$1.55M
Not 0 savings, but just a 100K after you retire and your kid turns 21. Enough to keep you alive till you kick the proverbial bucket? I don't think so...
An average Singaporean family will have to live like the church mouse just to survive and procreate. And heaven forbid illness from striking any member of the family or the loss of a job.But then again... I admit life really seems to be particularly bad for poor people in singapore...
Not just for the poor. Even for the average, it ain't no cakewalk. -
Sorry buddy... my calculation involves 2 child already
total = 18.25X35 + 201.6X2 + 220
= 1261.95k = 1.262million
The house is indeed 99 years only. However it can be used for 2-3 generations. After the end of 35 years there is still value in the house at the end which is almost the same price u buy it with.
In the end you get to take out some of your CPF too. I think the saving one have will increase.
I know it is not your article I am commenting on his article not yours. -
A bit hard to tell, when in your first post, you said "The problem is u use an average income for household yet state an expenditure of a above average citizens."Originally posted by stupidissmart:Sorry buddy... my calculation involves 2 child already
total = 18.25X35 + 201.6X2 + 220
= 1261.95k = 1.262million
The house is indeed 99 years only. However it can be used for 2-3 generations. After the end of 35 years there is still value in the house at the end which is almost the same price u buy it with.
In the end you get to take out some of your CPF too. I think the saving one have will increase.
I know it is not your article I am commenting on his article not yours.
Anyway, assuming one is to live in the same 3 room flat for 3 generations (VERY unlikely), it would be safe to assume each generation will want to renovate their house at least twice. Thats an additional what, 100K per generation? Inclusive of interests on reno loans.
Anyway, we can argue semantics and details till the cows come home, but the fact remains that, for an average family in Singapore, to raise 2 kids would mean a no-frills, no luxury, church mouse existence. Again, barring serious illness or job losses. -
Hi all! Just like to say that i think SG life is just too stressful for a family lor. I got friends working 7am till 12am almost everyday lor! and some dun even have OT! How to start family like that? Keep pets also difficult sia! And Dr Ong needs to use his brains more often, and think of the consequences b4 he says anything stupid again. And he better have at least 4 children, and if he already have 4 kids, he should have 5.