I decided that it is time for a closure on all the speculations about whether I should have a third child, especially since the PM has now announced further measures to encourage birth. So to all the Marists out there who have nothing better to do than to cheer me on for a third child, read on.
Firstly, I mentioned that if maternity is extended to 6 months, I will want a 3rd child. But now, it is only extended to 4 months... that makes it a borderline decision. To have or not to have? That is the question. While the government has dished out more generous carrots to lure parents, these are still generally conservative and not as liberal as those in Sweden or the Scandinavian countries. But one can also understand why we might not go the Swedish way - our country is too small and competition is too keen for us to be able to afford such generous incentives to promote birth. Take for instance my husband who owns a SME and works gruelling hours and sleeps 5 hours every night. He has stated very clearly that he will not employ any female who might want to take maternity leave. Is that discrimination? In a way yes. But if you see it from his perspective, his company simply cannot afford to pay for 2 months of maternity leave and yet have to employ an additional person to cover the job. Perhaps this is possible for a MNC/ Civil Service etc. But not for SMEs as their profit margins are slim and its a thin line between profitability and survival. So the government can do more to help our SMEs support pro-birth policies.
By the way, I have ever asked my husband: would he employ me to do administrative work? He says of course! But I will only be paid $500 a month. I told him to forget it, as I do believe that my market value (even if it is just to teach lifeless Marists) is higher than that.
So back to the new incentives. Do they attract me? No, not enough for a 3rd child. But if I only had 1 child or no children, I will be very attracted and will definitely take them on. And as one ex-Marist advised me, don't have more children unless you love children. Well, I do love to terrorise my children, so does that count as loving them?
Firstly, I mentioned that if maternity is extended to 6 months, I will want a 3rd child. But now, it is only extended to 4 months... that makes it a borderline decision. To have or not to have? That is the question. While the government has dished out more generous carrots to lure parents, these are still generally conservative and not as liberal as those in Sweden or the Scandinavian countries. But one can also understand why we might not go the Swedish way - our country is too small and competition is too keen for us to be able to afford such generous incentives to promote birth. Take for instance my husband who owns a SME and works gruelling hours and sleeps 5 hours every night. He has stated very clearly that he will not employ any female who might want to take maternity leave. Is that discrimination? In a way yes. But if you see it from his perspective, his company simply cannot afford to pay for 2 months of maternity leave and yet have to employ an additional person to cover the job. Perhaps this is possible for a MNC/ Civil Service etc. But not for SMEs as their profit margins are slim and its a thin line between profitability and survival. So the government can do more to help our SMEs support pro-birth policies.
By the way, I have ever asked my husband: would he employ me to do administrative work? He says of course! But I will only be paid $500 a month. I told him to forget it, as I do believe that my market value (even if it is just to teach lifeless Marists) is higher than that.
So back to the new incentives. Do they attract me? No, not enough for a 3rd child. But if I only had 1 child or no children, I will be very attracted and will definitely take them on. And as one ex-Marist advised me, don't have more children unless you love children. Well, I do love to terrorise my children, so does that count as loving them?
1 comment:
Oh, then that explains the growing periods of maternity leave every few years...
Well, then it appears that it's necessary to spend time with the new-born child for the first six months or so. But by doing so, the mothers have to be away from work and it must be really heartbreaking on their companies' side of the coin too...
Perhaps one solution would be if the mothers could do stay-home jobs (or however you call it) during their maternity leave so that they can still complete their work, just that they would be able to physically stay at home to take of the their baby, and their work too.
Post a Comment