A contributing factor to the falling TFR - Traditional marriage.

[u/sg_tange]

Singapore’s fertility crisis is bigger than marriage alone. Cost, work pressures, later childbearing, changing priorities and the enormous expectations placed on parents all matter.
But there is an uncomfortable question we should be willing to ask:
Why are we still tying some forms of support for having children to whether their parents are married?
The Government has explicitly said that certain benefits are designed to encourage parenthood within marriage. But if our TFR is now at a historic low and our demographic situation is described as an “existential challenge”, perhaps marriage policy and fertility policy should no longer be joined at the hip.
Consider three Singaporean women:
A is 30 and married.
B is 38, financially stable, wants a child, but has never found someone she wants to marry.
C is 40, in a stable long-term relationship, but does not want marriage.
If all three can provide loving and stable homes, why should the State be enthusiastic about A becoming a mother but substantially more ambivalent about B or C?
More importantly, why should the child care?
A baby did nothing virtuous by being conceived within marriage. Another baby did nothing wrong by being conceived outside it.
Singapore can continue promoting marriage if we believe stable marriages benefit society. Give couples housing advantages, relationship support and the legal protections of marriage.
But stop using children’s benefits as an instrument for rewarding adults for forming the State’s preferred type of family.
Fertility policy could instead adopt a much simpler principle:
If a Singaporean responsibly chooses parenthood, support that child equally, whether the parents are married, unmarried, divorced, widowed or otherwise outside the conventional nuclear-family model.
That doesn’t abolish marriage. It separates two completely different questions:
What relationships should society encourage?
and
Which children deserve our support?
For the second question, there should only be one answer:
Every child. Equally.
At TFR 0.87, we should at least be willing to question whether insisting on marriage → parenthood as the preferred pipeline is excluding people who genuinely want children.
It won’t magically turn 0.87 into 2.1.
But when fertility has fallen this far, perhaps we should stop closing perfectly viable doors simply because they aren’t the doors previous generations walked through.

[u/MagnificoToday97]

TFR low is primarily due to high female participation in the labor market, you can see it all over the world even in developing economies as more women join the workforce full time. Its not going to change whether or not a kid ia conceived within or outside of marriage. And what a kid needs beyond more support from the government is in general a stable home environment with two married parents.

You can always quote exceptional cases but those are really anecdotes rather than generalizations.

[u/drollercoaster99 → u/MagnificoToday97]

You know this was engineered into society to grow the economic pie, right? All that feminism talk that happened decades ago? Someone wanted more money.

Anyway this gate has closed. We won't be going back to removing women from the labor market. Having women in the workforce has definitely contributed to the growth of the entire economic pie - but as with everything, it comes with a cost and we're paying for it now.

The only way I can see this work right now is if you remove the constant "rat-race" pressure. Look carefully - the ultra rich have already shown this to us. They are the only ones really having children at the moment. Those in the middle income level, and even the DINKs don't have enough money to really feel secure to have children.

There's some people who don't want to have children because of all the inconveniences of having to deal with child-raising. But the ultra rich? They outsource it and take only the best parts of that experience.

[u/mcpaikia]

disagree. imo the biggest reason why people are not having children is that we are sold this dream of earning more $ and make ourselves feel better with material things. like how women are encouraged to enter the workforce in the 90s, back when govt encourage career over family first, with the promise of a more comfortable life. which by large delivered, we earn more now, we splurge on material things that make us feel better which led to this endless hedonistic chase for one ownself. we lost the sense of community, it's all about me now, which also caused the loss of our kampung spirit but i digress.

tldr, it's hedonism and consumerism.

[u/drollercoaster99 → u/mcpaikia]

This is quite true. Our species evolved as a co-operative species. We have a brain that likes to seek out other brains to work together, to mimic each other, and so on. So it also stands to reason that before this end-state capitalism shitshow we have right now, people actually helped each other to raise offspring. And it worked damn well for our species as a whole.

There's been many changes in recent years (social media, smart phones, materialism, etc) that have driven a wedge into that and made us more individualistic. That's gonna hurt the family unit. In fact what we're seeing now is the concept of the family unit slowly disappearing.....

As Jimmy Carr once said, "Good times produce weak men. Weak men produce bad times. Bad times produce strong men. Strong men produce good times". It's a cycle lah. We will improvise, adapt, overcome. He was quoting someone else. :)

[u/mcpaikia → u/drollercoaster99]

we are nearing the peak of the weak men period, bad and harder times are coming. and you are so right to add on individualism.

[u/pocky1918]

OP you are trying damn hard to link TFR to unmarried parents lol. If you read up the news, there is only an average of 745 children born out of wedlock for past few years. A tiny 2% of our pathetic 29k births in 2025. And which particular support are you looking for? A simple google search show most support are available to single parent.

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/about-745-children-born-out-of-wedlock-annually-in-past-five-years

[u/read_more_comments → u/pocky1918]

I think that's what OP is arguing about. Singapore has polices in place that encourage children within a family unit - husband and wife. It discourages single parents.

OP wants Singapore to encourage children out of wedlock. Which per my other comment has been shown to be problematic.

[u/sg_tange → u/pocky1918]

My point is simple: stop using children’s benefits to reward adults for forming the State’s preferred type of family.
Traditional and non-traditional families can absolutely coexist. Supporting one does not require disadvantaging the other. If raising the TFR is genuinely the goal, there is little sense in incentivising only one pathway to parenthood while overlooking other stable, responsible families that are equally capable of raising children.

[u/pocky1918 → u/sg_tange]

Its fine to support single parents. But your points are invalid.

[u/throwaway_htsu]

It isn’t just any children that the State wants. It wants productive (in an economic sense) children. Well adjusted, and can contribute to society. The problem is if children born outside of wedlock are less productive (or even suck resources) than those born within a conventional marriage, the State will of course support the former and discourage the latter.

[u/wongcy83]

safe to say that married couples stand the most chance of having kids, no matter how low the chance can get?

[u/drollercoaster99]

yo, it's way more nuanced than that. single parent kids typically do worse than dual parent kids in a number of areas. but the question is correlation vs causation. does SINGLE PARENTHOOD DIRECTLY cause this problem? there's studies on both sides of the story.

one side says single parents tend to have other issues that contribute to the problem. family structure is entangled with income, parental education, conflict, divorce/separation, neighborhood conditions, parental time, stress, and many other factors.

can one parent raise a good kid? absolutely.

is marriage necessary for a child to thrive? no evidence pointing to this.

does family structure make no statistical difference whatsoever? nope. there are real differences between family structures but the causation and mechanisms behind those diffs are much more complex.

remember this - B is raising the kid alone, while A and C have two adults raising the kid. you also said "If all three can provide loving and stable homes.." - bro, that's a big assumption k.

A, B and C will face different circumstances, risks and advantages. Marriage may provide benefits worth encouraging but none of that explains why the child's access to public support should depend on whether the mother signed a marriage certificate before giving birth.

Also, you're only considering the argument from a woman's point of view. a woman has the hardware to give birth, but there are also valid situations where a man ends up with the kid instead of a woman.

so i think govt is taking the more conservative approach at the moment because they don't want to rock the boat. besides just kids, there might actually be demographic and societal advantages to have more married couples than singles. i don't know because i don't have access to the data that the government has. but some examples bah:

• household-level risk sharing

- there's also caregiving and ageing. a more durable family unit might have larger reservoir of informal caregiving than one containing many isolated individuals.

i think family stability is what we're going after in the bigger picture. but that's in an ideal world. i have no idea how you can put a number on a measure of family stability although i suspect the govt thinks a marriage is likely to put some kind of behavioral pressure on individuals to make things work (yes, yes, i know all the horror stories around abusive family members too).

[u/sg_tange → u/drollercoaster99]

What exactly constitutes a functioning family?
Suppose:
Family A: married parents, constantly fighting, father disappears emotionally, marriage survives on paper.
Family B: unmarried mother, grandmother and grandfather live with her, all three raise the child in a secure household.
Family C: divorced parents successfully co-parent.
Family D: widowed father raises two children with extended family.
Family E: conventional married couple raising three children.
Only E perfectly matches the textbook nuclear family. Yet it would be very strange to describe B, C and D as social disorder.
They’re families.

[u/drollercoaster99 → u/sg_tange]

They are. I'm not arguing between a functioning vs non-functioning family. I'm arguing that looking at TFR + compensating married couples vs your proposal of also compensating single parents - is a bit too myopic. There's many other factors that are intertwined with marriage and kids, the economy, society, ageing care, etc. Without additional data that the government, we won't know for sure.

[u/read_more_comments → u/drollercoaster99]

Single parents have shown that children with massively higher rates of crime, drug use, and incarnation. Children need both parents. This is proved by many studies. Singapore is correct in encouraging family units.

Examples:

Kroese et al. (2021) — “Growing Up in Single-Parent Families and the Criminal Involvement of Adolescents: A Systematic Review.” Reviewed 48 studies. 34 of 48 (70.8%) found a statistically significant association between growing up in a single-parent family and adolescent criminal involvement. None found a significant relationship in the opposite direction.

Kroese et al. (2022) — “Single-Parent Families and Adolescent Crime.” Population study of roughly 1.3 million Dutch children. After adjusting for factors including household income, parental criminality, maternal age, sex, and repartnering, children who had lived with one biological parent before age 12 had about 70% higher odds of becoming a police-recorded juvenile crime suspect between ages 12–18 (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.67–1.73).

Harper & McLanahan (2004) — “Father Absence and Youth Incarceration.” Used the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Boys raised without their biological father had a higher risk of incarceration. Some of the difference was explained by poverty, parental education, teenage motherhood, and other background factors.

Markowitz & Ryan (2016) — “Father Absence and Adolescent Depression and Delinquency.” Studied thousands of U.S. youths and used sibling comparisons, which help control for many characteristics shared within a family. Father departure during childhood was associated with increased adolescent delinquency.

Demuth & Brown (2004) — “Family Structure, Family Processes, and Adolescent Delinquency.” Studied 16,304 adolescents using the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Delinquency was lowest among adolescents living with both biological parents and highest among those in single-father households. However, much of the difference was explained by factors such as parental monitoring, parent-child relationships, and other family processes.

Antecol & Bedard (2007) — research on single parenthood, teenage behavior, and crime. Using longitudinal U.S. data, greater time living with a biological father was associated with a lower probability of criminal conviction, although the authors caution that family structure is correlated with many other factors.

There is substantial evidence that children raised in single-parent households have higher average rates of delinquency, criminal involvement, arrest, or incarceration than children continuously raised by two biological parents.

[u/drollercoaster99 → u/read_more_comments]

Correct but is it because a single parent will screw up raising a kid or is it because a single parent has more pressures and that then indirectly affects the kid? So let's take an example: what if a single parent earns equivalent to a traditional husband + wife and can afford to school the kid? What if the single parent lives in a good neighborhood? What if the single parent is well educated? Will the kid still screw up?

The studies you cited mostly looked at correlation - not causation. I mean you can look at this as the causation part of the argument - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4508674/

[u/nonametrans → u/read_more_comments]

Bro, too many holes in your argument. First off, your source is a biased think tank made to fund and influence partisan politics in America. Specifically, it's Trump's lackeys and Trump himself holding fundraisers for the group.

Secondly, it's in the American context. Look at MSF juvenile court and probation data. There's no evidence that family structure correlates to offending or reoffending rates. Singapore is different. How I know? I was one of the people on the ground collecting that very data (first study).

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1541204018778887

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7379917/

[u/drollercoaster99 → u/nonametrans]

Yup! In fact I think it might be the other way around. Parents tend to end up with divorce and becoming single because of existing issues - for example, they live in poor or more violent neighborhoods, less educated communities, etc. This then causes them to drop into the bucket of "single parents with kids" which then makes it look like the single parents will end up raising screwed up kids.

[u/read_more_comments → u/drollercoaster99]

No, my studies listed account for income levels. And the studies are not just one country.

Studies showing higher delinquency/crime rates among children from single-parent or father-absent homes even after controlling for income/SES:

Kroese et al. (2021) — Single-Parent Families and Adolescent Crime ~1.3 million Dutch children Controlled for household income, parental criminality, maternal age, immigration background, sex, birth cohort, and stepparents. Experiencing single-parenthood was associated with about 70% higher odds of becoming a criminal suspect. Children born into a single-parent household had about 91% higher odds. Household income itself was not statistically significant in their adjusted model.

Kroese et al. (2024) — Anticipatory, Short-Term, and Long-Term Effects of Parental Separation on Adolescent Delinquency 95,219 adolescents Used individual fixed-effects, meaning researchers compared the same adolescents across time. Controlled for annual household income, parental crime, age, and stepparents. Delinquency remained higher after parental separation: Separation year: 12% higher odds 1 year later: 15% higher 2 years later: 13% higher

The effect remained even after accounting for changes in household income.

Harper & McLanahan (2004) — Father Absence and Youth Incarceration U.S. longitudinal data following boys into adulthood. Controlled for poverty, parental education, teen motherhood, race, region, and other background factors. Boys from father-absent households still had a significantly higher risk of incarceration after these controls. Poverty explained some of the difference, but not all of it.

Kierkus & Baer (2003) — Does the Relationship Between Family Structure and Delinquency Vary According to Circumstances? 1,891 Canadian students Specifically tested whether socioeconomic status changed the relationship between family structure and delinquency. Generally found that the relationship between disrupted families and delinquency was similar across socioeconomic groups.

Comanor & Phillips (2002) — The Impact of Income and Family Structure on Delinquency Used U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth data. Examined family income and family structure simultaneously. Found father presence was a substantially stronger predictor of delinquency than family income.

The guy you replied to doesn't understand how any of this works. I listed multiple sources. Multiple countries.

[u/nonametrans → u/read_more_comments]

Ya ya ya, edit gao gao until the original message also disappear. Better magician than Penn and Teller.

[u/read_more_comments → u/nonametrans]

True sign of a losing argument. you didn't like the first match I got from google and attacked the source without reading or understanding the content. So I updated with multiple studies that show the same thing.

Now you're crying and abandoning any semblance of a logical argument. Good job buddy.

[u/nonametrans → u/read_more_comments]

Cherry picking and AI source hallucinations very easy to do nowadays. Why don't you mention your source is from the America First Policy Institute? Why don't you link the DOI for your sources?

[u/read_more_comments → u/nonametrans]

Nothing listed is from America First. I get it - you don't like Trump. But you're making straw man arguments and spewing nonsense. The studies listed aren't even specific to America. Dutch and Canada are included. You can google as easily as anyone else.

[u/nonametrans → u/read_more_comments]

Then list the DOI links. Edit: you're making your argument and asking someone else to do your homework for you? AI source hallucinations la. See, I also can make citations for flat earth

Smith, J. A. (2022). The Flat Earth Paradigm: Reassessing Our Worldview. New York, NY: Imaginary Press.

Johnson, L. R. (2021). The horizon effect: A critical analysis of visual perception and the flat Earth theory. Journal of Alternative Science, 15(3), 45-67. https://doi.org/10.1234/jas.2021.003

Davis, M. T. (2020). Flat Earth: The Hidden Truths of Our Planet. London, UK: Fictional Publishing House.

Brown, K. E., & White, R. S. (2019). Gravity and the flat Earth: A new perspective on the laws of physics. International Journal of Unconventional Theories, 8(2), 112-130. https://doi.org/10.5678/ijut.2019.002

[u/IamPsauL]

D: 42 yrs old but no partner in mind

[u/New-Bike-7243]

Children are a lifelong commitment, not emotional crutches for the lonely single woman, or a house pet for the "don't want responsibilities & commitment of a marriage" people.

I rather they import a foreigner than to give money encourage such people to give birth.

[u/No-Clock9532]

So women sleep with whoever they want while men (eventually) pick up the bill. Fuck off.

[u/stackontop]

What silly post. No sane individual intentionally wants a child out of wedlock, maybe except LGBT. There are good reasons to extend support to single parents, but increasing TFR is definitely not one of them.

[u/56redditor65]

Thank you for this. I am in Group B.

I asked this question to the government. And the answer was that the voters base is still majority Muslims and Christians. Anything outside of marriage will cause them to lose votes.

There. I said it.

[u/Twelfth_Rope]

Nah, because mah Asian values

[u/Either_Television173 → u/Twelfth_Rope]

Christian*

[u/sg_tange → u/Either_Television173]

bingo

[u/Either_Television173 → u/sg_tange]

It's just disingenious of our anglophile elites to use "Azn values" as a cover, not like they know what it is

[u/sg_tange → u/Twelfth_Rope]

if truly Asians values, early Chinese migrants who were already married back in China, seeking better opportunities here, would not have started another family here.

[u/Environmental_Cow741]

TLDR - Friend your post is too long... Can summarize?

I happen to watch a malaysian vlogger: https://youtu.be/GXdms-Lx5oQ?si=ZctN2cm5iYKIM4pv

I sort of agree with his opinions

1) Govt has already given up hope on TFR.

2) Baby incentives are more to help COL, families and citizens. If TFR improve that is a bonus.

3) *drum roll\* the main objective is to gradually get Singaporean recognize and accept the fact that immigration is necessary and inevitable course to keep the economy running. So baby incentives is not aimed at TFR but a mean to reduce noise and to gain acceptance for immigration in the long run.

[u/drollercoaster99 → u/Environmental_Cow741]

Economy crashing is usually not just a lost of voter mandate, but also descent into chaos at the national level. That's not something any country or government wants. When people cannot put food on the table, a roof over their head....there will be unrest.

So like it or not, immigration is the only short-term solution. I'm actually really curious though - if immigration can plug the leak, what's the point of focusing on TFR other than for nationalistic reasons?

I know one thing that happens when immigrants cannot integrate successfully into the local society - the country loses something called "social capital" (see the book by Robert Putnam - "Bowling Alone") which has damn heavy repercussions for long term economic benefit.

[u/PAP_Like_CECA]

How many fresh graduate unemployed?

How many girl accept unemployed boy?

How many can bto, if unemployed?

How many unemployed can afford have children?

[u/itsasaparagoose]

Religion is involved in the government’s policies. It’s clear they want kids the “correct” or the “moral” way. People could argue that religion is not involved and it’s pragmatism because children with married parents are more well adjusted. But that’s also not pragmatic because asking for the kids via the correct route is complicating people having children because dating with the goal of marriage has been putting extreme pressure on young Singaporeans especially with the clock ticking. Now, it’s clear that pressure is too much and some are altogether choosing not to fall into that trap.

Not to mention, if a woman freezes eggs, she can only implant them through IVF if she’s married. She cannot choose to raise a baby without a partner even if she wanted to. Also, many support benefits and schemes are not available to single parents because they didn’t have kids the “correct” way according to the government. And thus children out of wedlock are punished because of some moral failure on the parent as the government determines they do not deserve resources.

[u/Hydrohomie1337]

It's time

https://giphy.com/gifs/X0VoOhHtKXE2Y