Singapore: From "Stop at Two" to "Have Three or More" – Population Policy Notes

Key Definitions and Conceptual Framework

• Pro-natalist policy
  • Governmental or institutional measures designed to raise the crude birth rate (CBR) and/or total fertility rate (TFR).
  • Typical context: countries with \text{CBR} \le 10\,\text{‰}, negative natural increase, or an ageing population structure.
• Anti-natalist policy
  • Measures intended to lower fertility, encourage smaller families, and ultimately slow population growth.
  • Typical context: countries with high CBR (often \ge 30\,\text{‰}) and a youthful age-sex pyramid.
• Singapore’s trajectory
  • Unique in having adopted both strategies within one generation:
  • 1972–1987 ⇨ anti-natalism ("Stop at Two")
  • 1987 ⇨ present ⇨ pro-natalism ("Have Three or More – If You Can Afford It")

Historical Timeline of Singapore’s Policies

• 1960s–early 1970s: Post-independence baby boom created anxieties about housing, education, and employment capacity.
• 1972: Formal launch of "Stop at Two" campaign → beginning of the anti-natalist era.
• 1986/87: Abrupt reversal triggered by:
  • Evidence of below-replacement fertility (TFR < 2.1)
  • Rising old-age dependency ratio
  • Concerns about future labour-force size and military manpower.

Anti-Natalist Phase (1972 – 1987): "Stop at Two"

• Core Slogan: “Stop at Two.”
• Delivery mechanisms (inferred from the transcript headings B & C):
  • Nationwide posters & media drives framing the ideal family as two children.
  • Message stress: socioeconomic benefits of small families (education quality, housing priority, etc.).
• Broader context: Singapore emulated elements of other Asian anti-natalist programmes (e.g., subsidised sterilisation, family-planning clinics), though specific instruments were not detailed in the given transcript.

Pro-Natalist Phase (1987 – present): "Have Three or More If You Can Afford It"

• Driving anxieties
  • Shrinking cohorts entering the labour force.
  • "Greying" society → increasing health-care and pension burdens.
  • Reliance on foreign labour → perceived threat to cultural cohesion.
• Messaging shift: From limitation to encouragement of larger families, yet with a caveat of financial capability (“if you can afford it”).
• Policy tools mentioned only as "those shown below" in the source slide; typical incentives (not explicitly listed) usually include: baby bonuses, tax rebates, parental leave expansion, subsidised childcare, and priority school placement.

Measured Outcomes, Successes & Limitations

Successes (as explicitly stated)

• Slight uptick in TFR immediately after policy roll-out.
• Lower proportion of foreign residents (relative reduction) as a side-effect of bolstering local births.

Limitations & Critiques

• "Hearts and minds" barrier → financial carrots alone insufficient to reshape deeply held attitudes toward small family size.
• Short-lived fertility rebound; subsequent data show TFR quickly slid below replacement again (see next section).
• Perception of government over-reach; some citizens labelled measures “controlling.”
• Business resistance: costs of extended maternity leave and workplace absence.
• Democratic-capitalist context limits state coercion; voluntary uptake crucial and therefore unpredictable.

Demographic Evidence – Population Pyramids 1999 vs 2017

Raw population figures

• 1999: 3{,}822{,}619
• 2017: 5{,}784{,}537

Age-sex percentage distribution (selected bands)

• 0–4 years: 1999 → 3.6\% ♂, 3.4\% ♀ | 2017 → 2.4\% ♂, 2.3\% ♀
• 25–29 years: 1999 → 4.1\% ♂, 4.3\% ♀ | 2017 → 3.3\% ♂, 3.2\% ♀
• 65–69 years: 1999 → 1.3\% ♂, 1.4\% ♀ | 2017 → 2.5\% ♂, 2.6\% ♀
• 80–84 years: 1999 → 0.3\% ♂, 0.4\% ♀ | 2017 → 0.6\% ♂, 0.8\% ♀
• 95–99 years: negligible in 1999, still ≤ 0.1\% by 2017.

Interpretation

• Compression at the base signifies continued low fertility despite pro-natalist push.
• Bulging of 40–54 age cohorts (2017) signals the ageing wave approaching retirement.
• Doubling of 65–69 cohort share underscores the rising old-age dependency ratio, reinforcing policy urgency.

Connections to Broader Demographic Principles

• Mirrors the classic Demographic Transition Model (DTM): Singapore is firmly in Stage 4/5 (low birth, low death, ageing).
• Highlights interaction between population policy and economic development: high cost of living & competitive labour markets can suppress fertility even when incentives exist.
• Ethical dimension: Tension between individual reproductive autonomy and state interest in demographic engineering.

Quantitative & Conceptual Reminders for Exam

• Total Fertility Rate (TFR) definition: TFR = \sum_{a=15}^{49} ASFR_a \times 5
  (sum of age-specific fertility rates over five-year age bands).
• Old-Age Dependency Ratio (OADR): OADR = \frac{\text{Pop}{65+}}{\text{Pop}{15-64}} \times 100
  – Singapore’s OADR rising rapidly post-2000.
• Policy instruments can be financial, legal, or persuasive; success depends on cultural alignment, affordability, and perceived fairness.
• Real-world relevance: Singapore’s case is often contrasted with France (successful pro-natalism) and Sweden (generous welfare) to discuss why some incentives work better than others.