Government Intervention In Singapore Essay

According to Oxford dictionary, the word “private” refers to matters that concern an individual’s responsibility or is the responsibility of persons, as opposed to the public or the government. Over the years, there have been many cases of government intervention in Singapore on the private affairs of citizens. I will be discussing and evaluating the case for and against government intervention in this paper.

A case in point of how government intervention in private affairs can lead to undesirable consequences is family planning policies. Restrictions on family size and abortion rights both restrict the rights of parents in family planning decisions. This has wide-reaching effects on society as a whole, and also has a deep impact on individual

From 1960’s to 1970’s Singapore’s government established the two-child policy as it was concerned over uncontrolled population growth..The 1950s to 1960s was known as the “baby boom” era. The government had to deal with the challenge of providing jobs for the people as well as providing for healthcare, housing and transport needs. At that time, many Singaporeans were living in crowded housing and some in relatively unsanitary conditions. The ‘baby boom’ also led to large labour force supply and there were insufficient jobs to meet the demand. The two-child policy was very effective in curbing population growth. However by the 1980’s, the Singapore’s government realized that falling birthrates in itself had became a problem. Total fertility rate dropped to 1.44 by 1986. The elderly population was becoming larger while the younger population shrank. Domestic labour supply will shrink and this would impact Singapore’s economic growth. Even though the government had made many attempts to replace the birthrate since that time, it has been an uphill battle to reverse the effects of low birthrate. The current birthrate in Singapore is 1.29 as of 2012. To support Singapore’s economic growth, the government had to tap on foreign labour sources.

However it has also been observed that low birth rate is a phenomenon of many developed countries, regardless of government intervention. This begs the question of whether Singapore government’s

Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF) is a pension scheme where a part of our salary is set-aside in a savings fund. It can only be withdrawn when you reach retirement age. This can be seen as forced savings and thus a restriction on our rights to manage our own money for retirement. You cannot control how you want to save for retirement even if you are financially savvy and feel you can do a better job of saving and investing your own money. On the other hand proponents of forced savings believe that saving for retirement is something that requires a lot of long-term discipline. For the majority of people, this is not an easy task. There have been many cases of individuals who have squandered their savings on business ventures, gambling and imprudent spending. Thus, while enforced savings schemes like Singapore’s CPF may interfere with an individual’s rights, it does ensure a steady accumulation of much needed savings for retirement. As the escalation of cost of living is experienced worldwide, and life expectancy continues to rise, it is crucial that individuals have a sizeable retirement fund in order to continue to have a reasonable standard of living. Enforced savings give individuals a sense of security for their