Since secondary school days, my standard response to questions about how I foresee my future has been: “I would like to be a stay-home mother when I grow up.” This response often elicits wide-eyed stares and audible gasps of disbelief that caring for children is all that I want to do.
Not many other women share my sentiments and aspirations. Relatively equal education and career opportunities in Singapore mean that the “standard” pathway for women here is to study hard, do well in school, develop one’s career in her 20s and early 30s and leave marriage and family formation for later. The MOM Labour Force 2014 report reveals that labour force participation for men and women aged 25–29 begins roughly the same, 89.4% and 88.6% respectively, but progressively diverges thereafter to reach the high 90s for men, and the low 70s for women. Figures from the Department of Statistics reveal that the median age at marriage for males and females has gradually risen to reach 30.2 and 28.1 years respectively, a result of Singapore becoming a fast-paced economy and increasingly liberal society.
Though the education–career–family path has become ubiquitous, the education–family–career path is a road less travelled. Family-oriented women who choose to prioritise childbearing and caregiving by deciding to be stay-home mothers from the onset, or leaving the workforce temporarily for an extended period, would agree that deciding between furthering their career and starting a family rank among their toughest life choices.
This is because the state and social institutions do not recognise work at home to be equally productive as work in the formal economy. Hence, while work-oriented women are rewarded for balancing both career with family formation, those who are solely focused on caring for their families receive much less recognition or reward.
In her journal article Differentiated Deservedness, sociologist Teo Youyenn argues that public policies are crucial markers for understanding governance and state-society relations. More importantly, these policies are utilised as instruments to generate consent and discipline everyday behaviour of citizens. Policies inherently emphasise what and who is valuable and worthy, and thus, differentiate who deserves more than another.
As mothers who work are deemed by the state as more desirable than stay-home mothers, current policies are disproportionately skewed toward promulgating the worker-mother binary while policies to help family-oriented women achieve homemaking aspirations are severely lacking. Such policy initiatives (or the lack thereof) compel women to take the “standard” pathway and conform to the worker-mother binary, making it difficult for those with family-oriented aspirations to thrive.
Take the tax reliefs provided for worker-mothers to offset their taxable income for instance. These include the Foreign Maid Levy Relief, Grandparent Caregiver Relief, and Working Mother’s Child Relief. They are designed to maximise the productivity and “reproductivity” of women by encouraging them to be workers in the public sphere while simultaneously being mothers in the domestic sphere and are conditional benefits exclusive only to working mothers. A working mother with one child in the care of a grandparent can expect to receive a minimum of $8,000 in reliefs and rebates. Stay-home mothers who do not earn any taxable income do not benefit from these reliefs.
In a society where contributions toward productivity and national growth are esteemed and rewarded, participation in the private sphere is deemed to be less worthy of recognition and compensation. But why should women with childbearing and homemaking aspirations be penalised for not being employees? Why should work in the familial economy be valued any less than work in the formal economy?
It is imperative to question if this approach remains conducive for a country battling prolonged “lowest-low” fertility. To what extent is the government willing to forgo economic productivity for higher fertility?
British social scientist, Catherine Hakim, argues that governments who are serious about raising fertility rates should focus on policies to support women with family-oriented aspirations. These women tend to have higher fertility rates and are easier to convince to increase their family size.
Several things can be done. First, incorporate the thoughts and views of stay-home mothers into policymaking on the family, through focus group discussions and public forums, as well as engagement of women’s advocacy groups like the Association of Women for Action and Research (AWARE).
Second, help stay-home mothers defray the costs of childbearing and caregiving, which are more challenging for a single-income household. The existing Child Development Account (CDA) scheme – where savings deposited by parents are matched dollar-for-dollar by the government, up to a specified ceiling amount depending on the child’s birth order – can be enhanced. The funds can be used for childcare centre fees and medical expenses at healthcare institutions, among others.
Children of younger stay-home mothers, say those below the age of 30, can also be given extra help over and above the cash gift that the government gives parents to defray the cost of caring for a newborn. These additional funds can be pegged to half of the cash gift and would amount to $3,000 each for the first and second child, and $4,000 each for the third and fourth child. The additional funds can be deposited in the CDA to be used for specific expenses related to the child’s wellbeing and growth.
This additional support could encourage women to start their families young and return to the workforce later. In addition, the matching rate by the government can be increased to 1.5 times. Other enhancements – such as raising the deposit ceiling to receive the matching deposit – can also be made to encourage families to save more for their children.
This direct provision of financial support for stay-home mothers is akin to the tax reliefs and rebates that their working counterparts receive. It is also meant to supplement the income earned by the spouse, who is in the early stages of his career.
The state has generously provided for women who want to work and have children through its various Marriage & Parenthood schemes. In a bid to tackle Singapore’s fertility conundrum, it should convey a stronger message that mothering is equally as “productive” as working, and work at home is not inferior to work at the office.
I still carry hopes of being a stay-home mother, and with that, hopes for the state to recognise and value the work mothers do at home.
Samantha Wong was an intern with the Demography and Family research cluster at IPS from May to June 2015. She is a third-year Sociology student at the Nanyang Technological University.
Photo credit: Flickr