<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Statistics don't support 'Hotel Mama' hypothesis
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->STATISTICALLY, Mr Peter Huber's argument on Wednesday ('Few babies? Blame it on Hotel Mama') has no merit.
Statistics show that Singapore in the 1950s maintained a total fertility rate (TFR) at 5.83, higher than North American countries at 3.85 and Europe at 2.8. Data from Nation Master shows that in the past 48 years, Singapore's TFR stood at 5.45 in 1960. After the Stop at Two policy, it dropped to 3.05 in 1970 and 1.74 by 1980. It rose a little to 1.87 by 1990. By the turn of the century, it tapered down to 1.44. It dipped further down to 1.08 last year.
The picture in the United States and Europe was not much different. In 1960, the US' rate was 3.65 while Europe's was 2.81. By 2000, the US' rate had dropped to 2.05, Europe's to 1.48. Last year, the US rate rose to 2.1, Europe's to 1.55.
In 48 years, the demographic has fluctuated between a narrow band of 1.55 in the US and 1.26 in Europe, while Singapore's gap has widened to 4.37.
I would say the drastic drop in Singapore's birth rate was due to an imbalance of socio-economic development and educational levels, plus combinations of affluence and Western influence on value perceptions. Fewer babies have nothing to do with our social fabric and traditional values.
Does Mr Huber mean that the small incremental TFRs of the US and Europe come from independence and leaving home early, disobedience to parents and society, more space to bring one's lover home and freedom to have more relationships?
Paul Chan
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->STATISTICALLY, Mr Peter Huber's argument on Wednesday ('Few babies? Blame it on Hotel Mama') has no merit.
Statistics show that Singapore in the 1950s maintained a total fertility rate (TFR) at 5.83, higher than North American countries at 3.85 and Europe at 2.8. Data from Nation Master shows that in the past 48 years, Singapore's TFR stood at 5.45 in 1960. After the Stop at Two policy, it dropped to 3.05 in 1970 and 1.74 by 1980. It rose a little to 1.87 by 1990. By the turn of the century, it tapered down to 1.44. It dipped further down to 1.08 last year.
The picture in the United States and Europe was not much different. In 1960, the US' rate was 3.65 while Europe's was 2.81. By 2000, the US' rate had dropped to 2.05, Europe's to 1.48. Last year, the US rate rose to 2.1, Europe's to 1.55.
In 48 years, the demographic has fluctuated between a narrow band of 1.55 in the US and 1.26 in Europe, while Singapore's gap has widened to 4.37.
I would say the drastic drop in Singapore's birth rate was due to an imbalance of socio-economic development and educational levels, plus combinations of affluence and Western influence on value perceptions. Fewer babies have nothing to do with our social fabric and traditional values.
Does Mr Huber mean that the small incremental TFRs of the US and Europe come from independence and leaving home early, disobedience to parents and society, more space to bring one's lover home and freedom to have more relationships?
Paul Chan
