Changing S'pore family and what it spells for the future

This post came out from The Straits Time (11 June 2015)

There are more analysis on an earlier post (New study on extended family to ensure care) in the papers.

Several academics and welfare experts are of the view that the definition of "family" should be broadened to include extended family members for policies that involve incentives and benefits for those who support their relatives. It could greatly lighten the burden of caregivers who, on top of caring for elderly parents and young children, want to support relatives too, they said.

One such policy is the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Retirement Sum Topping-Up Scheme, in which people can top up their loved ones; CPF accounts. Right now, "loved ones" include a person's parents, parents-in-law, siblings, spouse, grandparents and grandparents-in-law. In a 2013 survey by the Ministry of Social and Family Development, four in fie polled said that they maintained ties with relatives. That suggests some Singaporeans might welcome the chance to support their relatives in their retirement years.
Note: The money used to top up the accounts can come from the person's own CPF account, or if they use cash, they may enjoy up to $7,000 in tax relief per year.

There were more mixed views of suggestions for housing grants or priority allocation schemes to be extended to people who live near their relatives, especially childless uncles or aunts living alone. National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan had cautioned against this as they could result in an "alumni effect" that shuts out young couples whose parents do not reside in the estate they want to live in. To extend the help to people living near their uncles and aunts could result in a similar effect. Second, the priority system could be abused. For those with relatives living in popular mature estates, it could even lead to unnecessary over-consumption by those who do not need public housing, but just the flat due to the premium housing. Plus, there is a difficulty of trying to verify if the nieces and nephews are indeed looking after the old folks.

Meanwhile, at least one expert worries that broadening the definition of "family" in policy could lead to a scenario where shared responsibility becomes diluted responsibility. Said Mr Edwin Yim, direct of the Asian Women's Welfare Association Family Services: "Giving more help options could mean providing more back doors. A person may feel less inclined to support his father if he knows the father can get financial help from other relatives."

But Mrs Chang-Goh Song Eng, head of Reach Counselling, said there was a need to deal with the actual situation on the ground. "Ideally, we want to focus on the family nucleus as the first line of support. But the reality is that family forms are changing and we want to ensure they are still well-supported."

Agreeing, IPS research fellow Christopher Gee said it would not be good to claim to be pro-family, yet be unwilling to accept that "family forms are changing rapidly".

In making this shift, it seems policymakers need to strike a careful balance between ensuring support services are future-ready and not incentivising children to pass on the responsibility of care to relatives, instead of sharing it with them. The first line of care and support must remain the immediate family. When that weakens, the hope is that the extended family will step forward, and with government help, offer support.


Thoughts:

1. My major concern is that, if the immediate family do not help provide for their parents, is the state going to play a much bigger role in the future and dipping into the yearly budget and support for these aged whom the family members do not want to support? This is a very difficult problem that the government have to consider very very carefully. 

Thoughts anyone?

Yours,

Something Small Thinking Big