Should we be glad?

I had intended to follow up on my last post with another on further discussions of rape, but that will have to wait now.

I am so incensed by the new amendments to the Children Development Co-savings Act which will entitle unmarried mothers to government-paid maternity leave (the last four weeks out of a total of twelve weeks. The first eight weeks are paid for by the employer and maternity benefits in general are governed by the Employment Act) if, and it's a big IF, they marry their child's father within three months of the birth of their child.

I was just about foaming at the mouth when various media contacted me for an interview.

Okay, someone reminded me that it is a good sign that the government is at least re-looking policies for single mothers. Something is always better than nothing, even if that something is so ridiculous. Okay, always look on the bright side of life. And give them the benefit of doubt.

But whichever way I look at it, I'm still furious:

1. If the mother could have married the father, she would have done so long ago, there's hardly a need to wait till the child is born.

2. So, do you mean to say that only a married mother is entitled to recuperate physically and bond with her child?

3. What about the father?

4. Do not pick on an easy target as a scapegoat. The woman is the one who gets pregnant, but hey, you need a man to have sex. So if pre-marital sex is so wrong, why only blame the woman?

5. Or is pre-marital sex only wrong and bad if you get pregnant?

6. The new amendment still suggests that a mother and her child are only worthy and deserving if there is a man around.

7. It is pure window dressing. They can say that they have already done something to help unmarried mothers - but what is the actual number of women that will benefit from this? Minuscule, I imagine.

(ok, I'm ranting. Back to reasoned arguments)

The Employment Act does not protect all employees - people in an executive, managerial or confidential position are not covered. The Children Development Co-Savings Act plugs this gap by awarding maternity leave to all Singaporean citizens whose children are Singaporean at birth, and who are married.

Hence, unmarried mothers who are employed in an executive, managerial or confidential capacity are not entitled to any paid maternity leave at all.

It is inhumane.

The health and well being of citizens (especially new born babies) should be paramount consideration, instead of conservative dogmatic ideology. There are other ways to signal official displeasure at unmarried motherhood that do not jeopardise health and safety.

Singapore is a country that depends on its human resource. Let's not throw away valuable human potential just because of ideology.

In any case, it would appear that the numbers of birth registered where the father is not named has remained more or less constant over the years. The extreme stigmatisation and discrimination has not resulted in the desired outcome. Surely civil servants can come up with more creative ways of discouraging births out of wedlock!

It is also ridiculous to imagine that women would decide to have babies willy-nilly. Having a child is a huge responsibility - physical, emotional and financial. Even married couples decide after careful consideration. For unmarried women, the decision becomes even more fraught, a choice between abortion, having the child and then giving him/her up for adoption, or keeping the child.

Surely two wrongs do not make a right, as the current situation would suggest. The women who decide on an abortion remain anonymous. Whereas the women who choose to have their babies and become mothers become statistics and are held up for public reprobation. It is ironic that the religious groups are so vociferous in their condemnations. Surely they can't believe that ending a life through abortion is preferable to single motherhood? Though this is what their reactions would suggest. Otherwise, we're back to easy scape-goating, and appearance over reality.

In any case, everybody makes mistakes, and deserves a second chance. And nobody is asking for special favours, just the absence of discrimination.

I have spoken to the founders of Flyin' Solo, a support group for single unwed mothers, and to several of their members. For most of them, their boyfriends fled without a word when they found out about their pregnancy, especially when they did not go for an abortion. All of them agonised over their decision to carry on with the pregnancy and to raise the child solo, weighing up the social and economic consequences with their sense of responsibility towards their unborn children. It was not an easy decision for any of them.

In a survey done in 2004, most respondents said that they found the cash incentives for having children distasteful and do not form part of the considerations when they decide to have children (after marriage). Likewise, I seriously doubt that unmarried pregnant women pay too much heed to the discriminatory measures when they consider whether or not to carry on with their pregnancies.

As always, there is a dearth of data available to the public. Perhaps the government can consider a study to find out if their discriminatory measures have the effect of cutting down the numbers of unmarried women having babies, in addition to simply making life very hard for them. Perhaps they could do a survey at all government hospitals, asking all unmarried women who have abortions if the government policies had a major impact on their decision to abort.

Okay, I suspect this post is not as well-reasoned as my other ones. I may re-write it all when I'm less emotional, and tired. Comments welcome, as always.