Beyond loss and gain: Reframing parenthood to tackle Singapore’s fertility crisis

SINGAPORE - For years, Singapore’s efforts to raise fertility have centred on policy levers – from cash incentives such as the Baby Bonus to structural support like parental leave, housing priority schemes and subsidised childcare.

Yet, the Republic’s total fertility rate has fallen to a record low of 0.87 in 2025. 

The newly formed inter-agency Marriage and Parenthood Reset Workgroup tackling this existential challenge has signalled a shift in approach. Policy reviews remain necessary but insufficient. It is targeting mindset shifts as well.

For this effort to succeed, the workgroup must first grapple with how Singaporeans weigh the trade-offs of parenthood in their lives, and rebalance what is lost and gained.

The need for such a shift is evident in how Singaporeans think about parenthood.

In February, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Indranee Rajah, who chairs the workgroup, noted that among the Singaporeans engaged by the Government, those who were hesitant about having children tended to view parenthood through what they stood to lose – career progression, other life goals, and personal freedom.

In contrast, those who were already parents, or intending to become one, often described it in terms of what they gained: the joy of family life, and the fulfilment and personal growth that come with raising children.

The reality is that many Singaporeans are socialised from a young age to define success in competitive, linear terms. 

From academic streaming and school admissions to co-curricular portfolios, internships and leadership roles, some young people learn early to optimise for measurable outcomes. 

By adulthood, this mindset often translates into a sense that one must make the most of their prime years. Pursuing higher pay, faster career progression and personal aspirations such as travel are often prioritised before taking on family responsibilities. Parenthood appears less like a natural progression and more like a disruption to an upward trajectory. 

If what weighs most heavily is the perceived opportunity cost of having children, then financial incentives alone will never fully address these concerns.

This is particularly acute for women, especially if caregiving continues to be seen primarily as their responsibility.

Reframing ‘loss’ and ‘gain’

There is a need to recalibrate parenting so that it becomes more of a “gain” than “loss”.

Reframing this balance between “loss” and “gain” requires change across several fronts – from workplaces and schools to the broader lived environment. 

First, workplace norms must evolve.

In many sectors, performance is still implicitly defined by long hours and constant availability. Flexible work arrangements exist, but their uptake is patchy and often comes with unspoken penalties.

Career pathways should normalise periods of slower progression due to caregiving without long-term consequences. Leadership tracks should not quietly filter out those who prioritise family at key life stages, and non-work hours must be guarded.

Just as importantly, fathers’ involvement must be embedded as a social and workplace norm to ease the caregiving load on mothers.

As Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) Social Lab research fellow Melvin Tay noted, employers cannot be treated as bystanders. Workplaces are where family aspirations are either supported or subtly squeezed out.

The harder question is how far society is prepared to go in nudging employers to treat family formation as a national priority, not merely a private matter for employees to manage on their own. This could mean setting clearer sector-wide norms on flexi-work and after-hours contact, more deliberate support for parents returning to work after caregiving breaks, public reporting or disclosure of family-friendly practices, and recognition or accreditation for pro-family employers.

Second, we need to rethink the definition of a good parent.

If it is equated with securing the best pre-school, enrichment classes and tuition, parenthood becomes a high-stakes, resource-intensive undertaking. This not only discourages larger families, but can also delay the decision to have children in the first place.

Decoupling academic performance from life outcomes is therefore crucial. When children are seen to do reasonably well across diverse pathways, and when small differences in early achievement do not translate into large gaps in future prospects, the pressure on parents eases.

In such an environment, parenthood feels less like a high-risk investment and more like a natural, attainable part of life.

A timely move to curb the “arms race” is the Education Ministry’s review of high-stakes examinations, along with other aspects of the school system. It is important that the review proceeds with due urgency and results in bold outcomes where needed.

Third, decisions about marriage and parenthood are shaped by practical constraints in the lived environment, including housing and transport. Singaporeans facing rising housing prices and cost-of-living pressures are unlikely to prioritise starting a family if these anxieties remain unresolved.

Recent moves have sought to ease some of these concerns.

The Large Families Scheme provides married couples up to $16,000 in additional support for each third or subsequent Singapore citizen child born on or after Feb 18, 2025.

The Housing and Development Board is also increasing the allocation quota under the Third Child Priority Scheme for flats offered through Build-To-Order and Sale of Balance Flats exercises. This gives priority flat allocation to eligible families with three or more children, helping them to secure a flat more quickly.

But there may be room to go further. This could include more deliberate support for larger families, such as preferential access to larger homes, and subsidies or vouchers to defray the costs of private transport.

Even then, material support alone may not be enough. What may still be missing is a sense of security about the future, such as whether there will be support in the event of job loss or if children do not find conventional success.

IPS senior research fellow Tan Poh Lin said people want to have children when the stars align: when finances are on the right track, job security is high, workplace conditions are pro-family, and there is support from family and the wider community. Above all, it is when the future looks less daunting and uncertain. 

Systems and schemes that are accessible, reliable, and sustainable create a psychological safety net. When people believe that they will not be left to cope alone if something goes wrong, the perceived “loss” tied to uncertainty diminishes significantly, Dr Tan added.

Ultimately, reframing marriage and parenthood as gain is about assurance.  

It means assuring Singaporeans that parents can leave work on time or adopt flexible arrangements without penalty, and that children can grow up in an environment where they are not subjected to excessive competition for resources and opportunities.

At the same time, the intrinsic gains of building a family must be more visible.

IPS Social Lab adjunct principal research fellow and academic adviser Tan Ern Ser hopes the workgroup will focus not only on the “hygiene” factors relating to time, money, opportunity and effort, but also on the motivating factors like the attraction of being in a loving relationship with a spouse, and the fulfilment of eventually having children.

When people see families around them supported and thriving, the intangible gains become more believable. The lived experiences of peers, colleagues and siblings can over time shape fertility decisions.

A reset that sidesteps difficult trade-offs is not a true reset, but a refinement, as Dr Melvin Tay cautioned. And Singapore has seen many refinements.

The challenge now is to confront those trade-offs more directly, including the implications for manpower planning and short-term productivity. The status quo will carry higher social and economic consequences in the long term.

If fertility is indeed an existential issue, the balance between losses and gains in Singapore’s parenthood equation must finally shift. 

Until parenthood is not seen as a detour or deterrent, but as part of a fulfilling life, Singapore will not be able to reverse the fertility trajectory.