Is maternity leave effective enough to spur baby boom?

Here’s why giving mothers 6-month paid leave is bound to fail in encouraging women in Singapore to bear more children.

Singapore’s current fertility has fallen to 1.2 children per woman of childbearing age, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. To encourage women and bear more children, the National Trades Union Congress has suggested that mothers should be given 6 months work off to care for their children without being penalized.

Experts interviewed by Singapore Business Review however think otherwise. Here are their thoughts:

Joo Lee AW, Managing Consultant,THE PEOPLE AT WORK PTE LTD

As a mother, my view is that the suggestion to extend the current maternity leave will not help. The question asked by NTUC is akin to asking how much pay one wants --which is always…”More!” because this could never be enough. There are other constructive solutions such as provision of child care facilities nearer workplaces, flexi work arrangements, or removing the fears of a pressure-cooker schooling system for new parents, etc.

As a professional who helps companies source high potential talent, I am concerned the extended maternity leave is going to place female executives—single or married-- in disadvantaged positions in terms of their job prospects and career planning. It is a fact that at senior management levels, majority of the key positions are held by men. While there are increasingly more women moving into these ranks, women remain a minority. Extended maternity leave may cause this gap to widen. While there may be companies who continue to provide equal opportunities, such a “benefit” may compel others to choose men over women, or singles over married women.

It is undeniable that the modern woman seeks fulfilment in family and in career. Balancing both is a personal choice, but this extended maternity leave will be a disservice to many women and worse, is unlikely to spur any baby boom either.

Lau Chuen Wei, Executive Director, Singapore Retailers Association

Giving the mother some additional time with the child is certainly a good thing, but there are many implications.

The operational cost in Singapore is already very high, and the cost of labour is escalating tremendously and this is not about to see any let-ups in a full employment market. This is particularly so in the service sector where jobs are not appealing to the local worker and the conditions for importing foreign workers have been tightened. To make the employer hold the job for a new mother and pay her her full salary for that length of time will be an added burden on the employer. Whilst it can be said that staff welfare is important and that taking care of the needs of the staff is one way of retaining staff, the employer needs to make sure that his business is sustainable and one of his responsibilities is certainly to manage costs. If such a recommendation becomes law, then the added burden on the employer is not only paying for an absent headcount, but he has to pay for a temporary staff to fill the gap, plus, shoulder the intangible costs of orientation, training and having the other staff members go through adjustments, and then contend with another round of assimilation when the mother returns to work 6 months later.

It has been said that the joys of parenthood far outweighs the sacrifices that needs to be made, then perhaps another way of dealing with this is to give the new mother the legislated 4 months paid maternity leave, then offer an optional 2 months unpaid leave. This way, both the employer and the employee shares the "costs".

if indeed, encouraging Singaporeans to marry and bear more children as Singapore’s fertility rate has fallen to 1.2 children per woman of childbearing age, far below the replacement rate of 2.1, meets a national agenda, then the government should also bear some of this cost. Perhaps the employer bears the legislated 4 months paid maternity leave the and the government pays the remaining 2 months' salaries of both the new mother as well as any temporary staff that the company has to hire.

Declan O'Sullivan, Managing Director, Kerry Consulting Pte Ltd

My own guess is that this would not have a huge impact on the birthrate. Of course it would be bound to increase it somewhat. However one might consider that such a policy is not cost free. One is really asking the (often private sector) employer to shoulder a cost relating to state policy. In a sense it would amount to a form of potential indirect tax, on the employer, when employing females. This might well generate unforeseen, possibly negative, outcomes.

It might be more useful to address the perception that child rearing is an expensive activity, for the typical dual income Singaporean couple. Major components of this expense include all the obvious direct costs, together with possible loss in salary if a parent decides to stay at home in order to raise the child(ren) and / or, third party childcare.
Has the possibility of some form of state subsidy, possibly means tested, for childcare, been examined?

Ultimately all policy decisions are trade offs. Just how badly does Singapore want to increase its birthrate? The whole matter would need quite a bit of thought…”

Pang Meng Hock, Managing Director,Apex Headhunters

My feeling is that NTUC’s recommendation will not be effective enough. Likewise it’s the same for other pot shot suggestions in the past. The best solution is to pay all mothers a national salary by the government for doing national service by bearing children and taking care of them for until they finish GCE ‘O’ or ‘N’ level. The national salary will be based on the number of children a woman has – more children, more salary -- that is sufficient to nourish them to become good, useful citizens of Singapore. I believe this idea will bring Singapore’s birth rate to above 2.1 without question!

If this idea intrigues you, I will be happy to discuss the details. If not, we will stop here.