SG-D-40: The Marriage and Parenthood Package — Pro-Natal Policy Architecture (1987–2026)

---

---

1. Key Takeaways

• Singapore's Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package is the world's most comprehensively engineered pro-natal programme to have produced little demographic result. From the 1987 reversal of the "Stop at Two" policy through six major package expansions over four decades, the Singapore government has deployed every instrument available to a developmental state — cash grants, tax reliefs, subsidised childcare, extended leave, housing priority, fertility treatment subsidies — without halting, let alone reversing, the fertility decline. The total fertility rate stood at approximately 1.62 when pro-natal policy began in earnest; by 2023 it had fallen to 0.97, the first time it dropped below 1.0 in peacetime, and by 2025 to 0.87 — among the lowest recorded anywhere in human history.

• The 1987 reversal was the necessary starting point but not a clean policy beginning. The new slogan "Have Three or More If You Can Afford It" retained a class qualifier that signalled the government's continuing anxiety about fertility among lower-income households — a residue of the Graduate Mothers Scheme's eugenic logic, even as its most offensive elements were being dismantled. The pro-natal programme that followed was from its inception stratified: more generous in incentives for higher-order births and, implicitly, for households with sufficient income to make use of tax reliefs.

• The 2001 Baby Bonus marked the transition from aspiration to structured financial architecture. Announced by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong at the National Day Rally on 20 August 2000 and implemented on 1 April 2001, the scheme introduced a cash gift (originally only for second and third children) and a Child Development Account (CDA) with government co-matching, creating a tangible financial instrument — money in a dedicated account parents could use for approved early childhood expenditure. Subsequent enhancements in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2015, 2021, and 2023 progressively raised both the cash gift amounts and the CDA matching caps. Under the 2023 enhancement (for children born on or after 14 February 2023), parents receive a cash gift of S$11,000 for the first and second child and S$13,000 for the third and subsequent child, plus a CDA First Step grant of S$5,000 and government dollar-for-dollar CDA co-matching ⚠Requires verification.

• The 2008 package was a structural inflection point, extending Government-Paid Maternity Leave from 12 to 16 weeks (effective 31 October 2008), expanding the Child Development Account, raising Working Mothers' Child Relief rates to 15/20/25% by birth order, introducing Grandparent Caregiver Relief, and adding a Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) levy concession for households with young children. The FDW levy concession recognised the reality of Singapore's dual-income household structure: for professional families, affordable domestic help was a prerequisite for parenthood, and the state's fiscal interest in childbearing justified a subsidy on this practical barrier. Paternity leave was not introduced in 2008; the first Government-Paid Paternity Leave (one week, paid) was legislated only in the 2013 enhanced package.

• The 2013 enhanced package, announced by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean (Minister-in-charge of population issues) on 21 January 2013 — days before the Population White Paper was tabled — represented the most comprehensive single expansion of the M&P framework, with an annual budget reportedly raised from S$1.6 billion to S$2 billion. It introduced statutory Government-Paid Paternity Leave at one week (with one further week available as Shared Parental Leave drawn from the mother's entitlement, effective 1 May 2013), enhanced ART co-funding (up to 75% of treatment cost, capped at S$6,300 per fresh cycle), Government-Paid Adoption Leave (four weeks), expanded Government-Paid Child Care Leave (two days for parents of children aged 7–12), the Parenthood Priority Scheme for BTO flat allocation, and a Medisave Grant for Newborns. The CDA First Step grant of S$3,000 was not introduced in 2013 but only from 1 July 2016 (formally announced in 2015). The political context was significant: the Population White Paper's public controversy had exposed the depth of public anxiety about the government's population management strategy, and the enhanced M&P package was in part a demonstration that the government was investing in domestic births, not only in immigration.

• The 2023–2024 Forward Singapore reframe elevated the M&P package from a financial-incentives regime to a broad social compact around parenthood. The Forward Singapore process, led by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong and completed in October 2023, explicitly framed the fertility question as one of societal values and structural conditions rather than individual financial calculation. The 2023 Budget (announced 14 February 2023) raised Baby Bonus cash gifts to S$11,000/S$13,000, doubled Government-Paid Paternity Leave from two to four weeks (the additional two weeks initially voluntary), and expanded the CDA First Step grant to S$5,000. PM Lawrence Wong's National Day Rally on 18 August 2024 then announced a new Shared Parental Leave scheme — six weeks (effective 1 April 2025), rising to ten weeks (effective 1 April 2026) — alongside making the additional two weeks of paternity leave mandatory from 1 April 2025. The framing was notably different from previous iterations: less technocratic, more explicitly about the kind of society Singapore wanted to be.

• The TFR trajectory from 1987 to 2026 is a story of relentless decline punctuated by brief plateaux and single-year bounces that never reversed the trend. The fertility rate has fallen through every threshold that demographers use as markers: below 2.1 (replacement level, already breached by 1975), below 1.5 (the threshold Gavin Jones calls "ultra-low fertility"), below 1.2 (2012), and below 1.0 (2023). By ethnicity, the Chinese population — approximately 74% of citizens — has led the decline, with a Chinese-resident TFR of roughly 0.83 in recent Population in Brief releases; the Malay community has maintained relatively higher fertility at roughly 1.58; the Indian resident TFR is roughly 0.91 ⚠Requires verification.

• The economic critique of Singapore pro-natalism identifies cost of living — particularly housing, childcare, and education — as the primary structural barrier that cash grants cannot overcome. Singapore has some of the world's highest private housing prices relative to median incomes, among the most expensive private childcare in Asia, and an education system whose shadow economy of enrichment tuition adds a further perceived-mandatory cost to child-rearing. The Baby Bonus, however generous in absolute terms, is dwarfed by the lifetime cost differential between having a child and not having one in Singapore's competitive economy.

• The time-use and gender critique, increasingly prominent in both academic literature and IPS survey data, identifies the asymmetric distribution of unpaid care work as the most intractable barrier to fertility. Singapore women's labour force participation has risen sharply — to over 70% by the 2020s — but the cultural expectation that women bear primary responsibility for child-rearing has not shifted at a commensurate rate. Paternity leave take-up has been below entitlement levels, particularly in private sector firms, despite legislated entitlements. The result is that employed women in Singapore face a starker career-parenthood trade-off than their counterparts in countries where domestic labour is more equitably shared.

• The comparative lens is sobering but instructive. Singapore shares its ultra-low fertility crisis with South Korea (TFR approximately 0.72 in 2023), Hong Kong (TFR approximately 0.70 in 2023), and Taiwan (TFR approximately 0.86 in 2023). All three are high-income, high-density East Asian societies with intense educational competition, high housing costs, and powerful cultural norms around achievement and filial duty. The contrast with Nordic countries — where TFRs of 1.6–1.8 are sustained — points to the centrality of universal, high-quality publicly funded childcare, near-complete paternity leave uptake, and genuinely flexible work cultures as enablers of parenthood that no amount of one-time cash grants can replicate.

• The fundamental structural tension in Singapore's M&P programme is that it attempts to increase fertility within a developmental model whose core features — high educational competition, extreme housing costs, intense labour market competition, long working hours, the premium on individual achievement — are precisely the features that suppress the desire to have children. The state cannot simultaneously optimise for the developmental model and for high fertility. The M&P package treats the symptom; the disease is the mode of life the model produces.

---

2. The Record in Brief

Singapore's pro-natal policy is best understood as the second, less successful act of a two-act demographic drama. The first act — the anti-natalist campaign of 1966 to 1986 — succeeded spectacularly, reducing the total fertility rate from approximately 4.7 at independence to 1.62 by the time the government reversed course. The second act, which opened in 1987 and is still running, has been a sustained exercise in policy innovation against demographic gravity.

The second act was always going to be harder. The anti-natalist campaign had the logic of economic development on its side: smaller families meant more savings per household, more labour market participation by women, higher investment in human capital per child, and relief from the Malthusian pressure of population growth on a resource-poor island. The pro-natal reversal ran against all of these logics. Singapore had built, with extraordinary success, an economy and a society in which the rational individual calculation pointed toward having fewer children, or none. The government now faced the task of persuading citizens to make a choice that the system it had constructed made costly.

The vehicle for this persuasion was the Marriage and Parenthood package — a term that first appeared in consolidated form in the 2001 policy announcements, though its components had been accumulating since the late 1980s. The package had three conceptual pillars: financial support (Baby Bonus cash gifts, CDA matching, tax reliefs), care infrastructure (childcare subsidies, infant care subsidies, ART subsidies, MediSave maternity coverage), and workplace measures (maternity leave, paternity leave, flexible work arrangements, caregiver leave). Each successive enhancement expanded one or more of these pillars.

The Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) — formed in 2012 from the merger of the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports and elements of other agencies — became the primary institutional home for M&P policy. The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) in the Prime Minister's Office provided the demographic analysis and inter-agency coordination. The MOM, IRAS, MOH, and CPF Board were all operationally involved in delivering components of the package. This institutional spread reflected both the complexity of the policy challenge and the difficulty of sustaining a coherent strategy across ministry boundaries.

The Population in Brief annual report, published jointly by NPTD and DOS, became the primary instrument of public demographic accounting — presenting TFR, marriage rates, citizen births, and immigration figures in a form accessible enough to generate media coverage but aggregated enough to obscure the specific policy implications. Each year's Population in Brief carried the same essential message: births were not sufficient, immigration was compensating, and the government remained committed to encouraging marriage and parenthood. Each year's TFR figure was slightly worse than the previous one.

The 2013 Population White Paper episode represented the only moment when the underlying demographic logic of the M&P programme was made fully explicit in a parliamentary document. The White Paper's projection of a possible population of 6.9 million by 2030 — requiring substantial net immigration to compensate for the fertility shortfall — generated the most significant public political backlash since the 1984 Graduate Mothers Scheme. The government responded by accelerating M&P package enhancements, tightening foreign worker inflows, and pivoting rhetorically toward a "Singapore core" framing. But the core logic of the White Paper — that immigration would be necessary to compensate for Singapore's demographic shortfall — remained unchanged.

By 2026, the M&P programme had been running for nearly four decades, had consumed many billions in government expenditure (no single source totals cumulative spend; annual programme cost rose from ~S$260m at 2001 launch to ~S$1.6bn for the 2008 package, ~S$2bn for the 2013 package, with the 2024 SPL scheme alone adding an estimated ~S$400m/year), and had demonstrably failed to reverse, or even stabilise, the fertility decline. This failure is analytically important: it represents one of the clearest documented cases in democratic developmental-state governance of a sustained, well-resourced, multi-instrument policy initiative that did not achieve its stated objective — and of a government that continued to invest in it anyway, because the alternative of simply accepting demographic decline was politically and fiscally untenable.

---

3. Timeline 1987–2026

---

4. The 1987 Two-Child Policy Reversal — From "Stop at Two" to "Three or More If You Can Afford It"

The announcement in March 1987 that Singapore was reversing its two-decade-old anti-natalist policy was, in policy history terms, a moment of unusual governmental candour about the limits of social engineering. Lee Kuan Yew, whose personal conviction had driven both the original anti-natalist campaign and the divisive Graduate Mothers Scheme, acknowledged that the government had been "too successful" in discouraging births. The total fertility rate, which had reached replacement level of 2.1 by 1975, had continued falling to 1.62 by 1986 — well below the level needed to sustain the citizen population in the long run.

The reversal was operationally complex because the anti-natalist regime had embedded itself in multiple policy domains simultaneously. The disincentives for third and subsequent children — higher hospital delivery charges, lower priority in school registration, reduced income tax relief — could not be reversed overnight without disrupting existing administrative systems. The government proceeded systematically through the late 1980s: accouchement fee differentials were abolished, priority school registration was restored for third and subsequent children, and Working Mothers' Child Relief was extended up the birth order. The Singapore Family Planning and Population Board (SFPPB), which had been the institutional engine of the anti-natalist campaign, was restructured; the family planning clinics it had operated began offering pro-natal counselling alongside contraceptive services.

The qualifier "if you can afford it" in the new policy slogan was not accidental. It reflected a genuine tension within government between the desire to raise the citizen birth rate and the continuing concern — never entirely shed from the Graduate Mothers era — that fertility among lower-income households would produce children who placed fiscal demands on the state without commensurate economic contributions. The pro-natal incentives that followed in 1987 and 1988 were structured to be more valuable to higher-income households: income tax reliefs benefit only those with taxable income above certain thresholds; enhanced Working Mothers' Child Relief (which refunds a percentage of working mothers' earned income as a tax credit) returns more to higher earners in absolute terms.

Yap Mui Teng's analysis of the 1987–2000 period in Management of Success: Singapore Revisited (ISEAS, 2010) notes that the pro-natal reversal coincided with a period of rapid economic growth and structural transformation that was itself suppressing fertility through indirect channels. Rising private housing prices, the expansion of the financial sector and professional services economy, the shift toward dual-income household norms, and the intensification of educational competition in the late 1980s and 1990s were all operating simultaneously on the fertility calculus. The government's removal of anti-natalist disincentives may have had a modest positive effect — the TFR ticked upward briefly — but structural forces were already embedding a downward trajectory that periodic incentive adjustments could not overcome.

Saw Swee-Hock's Population Policies and Programmes in Singapore (ISEAS, 2012) provides the most systematic quantitative treatment of the 1987 reversal's immediate effects. Saw documents the removal of specific disincentives year by year and calibrates the effect on birth registrations in the subsequent years. His conclusion is that the removal of disincentives had a detectable positive effect in 1988–1991 — a period when the TFR rose from 1.62 to approximately 1.73 — but that this effect exhausted itself as the underlying structural determinants of fertility reasserted themselves. The government's mistake, Saw argues, was treating anti-natalist disincentives as the primary cause of low fertility when they were in fact secondary to the structural transformation that rising incomes and urbanisation had produced.

The ethnic dimension of the 1987 reversal deserves specific attention. The "Three or More" policy applied universally, but its interaction with differential fertility rates by ethnicity created a political subtext. The Malay community, which had maintained a higher TFR than Chinese and Indian communities throughout the anti-natalist period, received the same pro-natal incentives as other communities — but also faced the implication that the pro-natal policy was partly designed to accelerate Chinese fertility in order to maintain the ethnic balance that had been shaped through the anti-natalist campaign's differential effects. The government did not make this explicit; the policy was framed in universalist terms. But the demographic arithmetic was visible to any careful reader of the annual Population in Brief reports.

---

5. The 2001 Pro-Natal Package — Baby Bonus, Childcare Subsidies

The launch of the Baby Bonus scheme in August 2001 represented a qualitative shift in Singapore's pro-natal architecture. Before 2001, the government's pro-natal measures were predominantly negative in form — the removal of anti-natalist disincentives rather than the provision of positive incentives. The Baby Bonus was the first large-scale direct financial transfer specifically designed to reward the decision to have a child, and it introduced the Child Development Account (CDA) as a savings instrument that made the government's contribution visible, trackable, and spendable on specific child-related goods.

The 2001 scheme as originally structured was narrower than later iterations: it provided a cash gift only for the second and third child, plus a CDA with government dollar-for-dollar co-matching capped at S$6,000 per second child and S$12,000 per third child (with annual parental contributions capped at S$1,000 and S$2,000 respectively). The first child was not included in the cash-gift component at launch; the scheme cost was reported by government in 2001 as approximately S$260 million a year. The CDA could be used at approved institutions for childcare, preschool, and healthcare; the CDA validity period was originally to age 6 and was later extended to age 12. The design reflected a deliberate policy choice to channel support toward early childhood expenditure rather than provide unrestricted cash — a reflection of the government's simultaneous concern with human capital development in the early years and its continuing reluctance to offer unconditional income transfers.

The accompanying childcare subsidy restructuring in 2001 reduced the monthly out-of-pocket cost of full-day childcare for working mothers in subsidised childcare centres. This was significant because private childcare costs in Singapore were already among the highest in the region, and surveys consistently identified childcare cost as a top barrier to parenthood among working women. The 2001 restructuring did not make childcare free or universally affordable — private sector childcare centres, which served a large share of the market, were not subject to the same subsidy framework as anchor operators — but it reduced the floor price sufficiently to make full-day care accessible to a wider range of middle-income households.

The 2001 package also enhanced the Working Mothers' Child Relief (WMCR), which had existed since the pro-natal reversal of the late 1980s but had been calibrated too conservatively to have significant impact. WMCR allows working mothers to claim a percentage of their earned income as a tax relief, with the percentage rising for each successive child. The enhancement moved the relief rates to levels that made the benefit meaningful even for median-income earners, though the absolute value of the relief remained larger for higher earners. The structural regressivity of tax-relief-based pro-natal incentives — a feature of the system from its inception — was not resolved in 2001 and has not been resolved in any subsequent enhancement.

The 2004 enhancement consolidated the early learning from the 2001 Baby Bonus take-up data. Take-up of the CDA was high but distributed unevenly: higher-income households, who could more easily make matching contributions, received larger government co-matching in absolute terms. The 2004 revision extended the cash gift to first children, raised CDA caps for higher birth orders, extended Government-Paid Maternity Leave from 8 to 12 weeks, and introduced (or expanded) the MediSave Maternity Package allowing parents to use MediSave for a broader range of maternity expenses ⚠Requires verification. This latter change was significant in the context of rising childbirth hospitalisation costs — by 2004, even in subsidised B2 or C wards of public hospitals, childbirth expenses could run to several thousand dollars.

The 2001 package's underlying theory of change was that financial barriers were the primary reason Singaporeans were not having children. This theory was always questionable — surveys even in 2001 consistently identified concerns about work-life balance, housing, and career impact as ranking alongside financial concerns — but it had the virtue of being actionable by a government that was more comfortable with financial instruments than with the cultural and labour market reforms that alternative diagnoses would have required. The financial theory of pro-natalism remained dominant through 2008, and its limits became progressively clearer with each iteration of data showing TFR continuing to decline despite rising incentives.

---

6. The 2008 Marriage and Parenthood Package — CDA, Paternity Leave, Foreign Domestic Worker Levy Concession

The 2008 package, announced by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the National Day Rally on 17 August 2008, was the most comprehensive revision of the M&P framework since the Baby Bonus launch. Its headline measures were the extension of Government-Paid Maternity Leave from 12 to 16 weeks (legislated under amendments to the Child Development Co-Savings Act and effective 31 October 2008), an increase in Working Mothers' Child Relief rates to 15/20/25% of earned income by birth order, the new Grandparent Caregiver Relief, and a FDW levy concession for households with young children or elderly dependants. Paternity leave was not introduced in 2008 — Singapore's first statutory Government-Paid Paternity Leave (one week, paid by the state) came only with the 2013 enhanced package and took effect from 1 May 2013.

The Foreign Domestic Worker levy concession was more immediately impactful for its target population. Singapore's professional dual-income household had, by the mid-2000s, often come to depend structurally on a live-in FDW for childcare, household management, and elder care. The monthly levy imposed on FDW employers — a significant household expense — was reduced for households with children under twelve or elderly dependants. This concession acknowledged that the effective marginal cost of an additional child for professional families depended not only on direct child-rearing costs but on the household management costs that a child added to an already stretched domestic system. The levy concession reduced this friction cost.

The Grandparent Caregiver Relief, introduced in 2008, formalised recognition of a caregiving arrangement that was already widespread in practice. Many Singaporean families relied on a grandparent — typically a grandmother — to provide primary daytime care for young children while both parents worked. The relief offered a tax deduction to working mothers who used a grandparent as caregiver, acknowledging this as a valid and valuable form of childcare that substituted for formal centre-based care. The measure was modest in fiscal terms but significant as a recognition of the extended family's continuing role in Singapore's hybrid care model.

The CDA enhancements in 2008 raised the matching caps and extended the range of approved uses to include additional healthcare providers and education programmes ⚠Requires verification. The MediSave Maternity Package was also enhanced, raising the lifetime claim limits for maternity expenses and extending coverage to fertility treatment costs for eligible patients.

The 2008 package was developed against the backdrop of a TFR that had fallen to 1.29 in 2007 despite the temporary Year of the Pig uptick, and projections from NPTD that showed the citizen population entering a sustained structural decline if fertility did not recover. Prime Minister Lee's National Day Rally address framed the package explicitly in terms of Singapore's long-term survival: "Without more children, we will shrink as a people, and as a nation." This language — survival framing applied to fertility policy — was characteristic of Singapore's pro-natal discourse from 1987 onward and reflected the existential register in which the government consistently discussed demographic decline.

The 2008 package also included enhanced subsidies for Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) treatment at public hospitals. By the mid-2000s, delays in marriage and childbearing — rising female age at first birth was a consistent trend in Population in Brief data — were producing higher rates of fertility challenges among couples who did want children. ART subsidies addressed a dimension of the fertility equation that financial incentives for voluntary childbearing could not: couples facing involuntary infertility. The subsidies covered a portion of the cost per treatment cycle ⚠Requires verification.

---

7. The 2013 Enhanced Package — Working Mothers' Tax Relief, Government-Paid Maternity Leave, Paternity Leave

The 2013 Marriage and Parenthood package was announced by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean (then Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister-in-charge of Population) at a press conference on 21 January 2013, days before the Population White Paper was tabled in Parliament (29 January 2013). The conjunction was not accidental: the government understood that the White Paper's frank acknowledgement of Singapore's fertility shortfall and its immigration-dependent response would generate public unease, and the M&P package was in part a political counter-narrative demonstrating continued investment in domestic births. The package's reported annual cost rose from approximately S$1.6 billion (2008 package) to about S$2 billion.

The centrepiece of the 2013 leave reforms was the first statutory Government-Paid Paternity Leave — one week, fully paid by the state — together with an additional week of Shared Parental Leave that fathers could take from the mother's 16-week maternity entitlement (subject to the mother's consent). Both schemes took effect from 1 May 2013. This was a significant departure from the previous regime, which had no statutory paternity entitlement at all; it would take until 1 January 2017 for paternity leave to be doubled to two mandatory weeks.

The Government-Paid Maternity Leave framework, already at 16 weeks since 31 October 2008, was retained: the first 8 weeks were employer-paid and the second 8 weeks government-co-funded for the first two confinements, with the full 16 weeks government-co-funded for third and subsequent confinements. This differential treatment — more generous government co-funding for higher-birth-order children — reflected the persistent policy incentive structure that valued additional children above the second.

(The CDA First Step grant — a government deposit credited automatically into the CDA without requiring a prior parental contribution — was not introduced in 2013. It was announced subsequently and took effect from 1 July 2016 at S$3,000 per child. It has since been raised to S$5,000 per child for children born from 14 February 2023 and to higher amounts for the third-and-subsequent child under the 2025 Large Families Scheme.)

Working Mothers' Child Relief was retained in 2013 at the 15/20/25% rates established under the 2008 package (15% of earned income for the first child, 20% for the second, 25% for the third and subsequent), with the combined relief capped at 100% of the mother's earned income. The WMCR structure remained one of the most valuable tax reliefs in Singapore's personal income tax system for working mothers; a fundamental restructuring (from percentage-based to fixed-dollar relief for children born from 1 January 2024) was announced only at Budget 2023.

The ART subsidy expansion in 2013 raised government co-funding to 75% of treatment cost, capped at S$6,300 per fresh cycle and S$1,200 per frozen cycle, with subsidies extended to three fresh and three frozen treatment cycles. This was significant given evidence that ART success rates improve with successive attempts and that financial constraints caused many couples to discontinue treatment prematurely. The expanded subsidies were linked to the growing clinical recognition that delayed childbearing — a structural feature of Singapore's highly educated, dual-career workforce — made ART a demographic policy tool as much as a healthcare provision.

The childcare and infant care subsidy restructuring in 2013 merged and simplified the subsidy framework, introduced a higher "additional subsidy" tier for lower-income families, and committed to expanding the number of places in subsidised infant care centres, where wait lists had become a significant barrier. The infant care subsidy expansion was particularly important given evidence that the first year of life was the most critical barrier to the decision to have a second child: if parents could not secure affordable infant care, the practical disruption to employment and household finances in the first year was sufficiently severe to deter subsequent births.

---

8. The 2023–2024 Refresh — Forward Singapore Reframe

The Forward Singapore process, initiated by Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong in June 2022, was the most ambitious public engagement exercise the Singapore government had undertaken since the 2003 Economic Review Committee. Its explicit purpose was to renew the social compact between state and citizenry across six domains: Equip, Rise, Care, Build, Steward, and Empower. The fertility and family formation question fell primarily under the Care pillar, but the Forward Singapore framing differed from previous M&P iterations in an important structural way: it invited public discussion about the values and conditions under which Singaporeans wanted to form families, rather than presenting a pre-determined package of incentives.

The Forward Singapore Report, published in October 2023 and co-authored under Lawrence Wong's chairmanship, described the fertility challenge in terms that earlier government documents had avoided. It acknowledged that financial incentives alone had not produced the desired result; that Singaporeans' reluctance to have children was rooted in genuine concerns about time, cost, career impact, and the quality of life available to families in Singapore's high-pressure environment; and that the government needed to address the underlying conditions rather than simply adjusting the incentive amounts. This represented, if not quite a policy reversal, at least a significant rhetorical repositioning.

Budget 2023 (announced 14 February 2023) — delivered by then-Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Lawrence Wong — introduced the most substantial Baby Bonus uplift since 2008: cash gifts raised to S$11,000 for the first and second child (from S$8,000) and S$13,000 for the third and subsequent child (from S$10,000); the CDA First Step grant raised from S$3,000 to S$5,000; and Government-Paid Paternity Leave doubled from two to four weeks, with the additional two weeks initially voluntary for employers. The new amounts applied to children born on or after 14 February 2023.

The Shared Parental Leave (SPL) framework was announced not at Budget 2023 but by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong at the National Day Rally on 18 August 2024. The SPL scheme provides a pool of fully government-paid leave shared between parents, with phased implementation: six weeks of SPL for eligible children born on or after 1 April 2025, rising to ten weeks for those born on or after 1 April 2026 (default split: 3+3 weeks in phase 1, 5+5 weeks in phase 2). PM Wong also confirmed that the additional two weeks of Government-Paid Paternity Leave would become mandatory from 1 April 2025. Once fully implemented in 2026, total state-funded parental leave between both parents will reach about 30 weeks. The SPL scheme is estimated to cost the government approximately S$400 million per year.

The 2024 Budget, delivered by DPM/FM Lawrence Wong on 16 February 2024 (before he became PM on 15 May 2024), sustained the M&P investment and broadened ART eligibility (removing the age cap, with co-funding extended to women up to age 45 [TBD-VERIFY exact ART parameter changes against MOH 2024 announcements]).

The workplace flexibility dimension of the Forward Singapore reframe extended beyond parental leave. The Tripartite Guidelines on Flexible Work Arrangements (FWA), which the Ministry of Manpower had been strengthening progressively since the COVID-19 period, were reinforced in 2024 with stronger expectation that employers would consider FWA requests seriously and provide documented reasons for rejection. The guidelines did not create a legal right to flexible work — Singapore retained its preference for tripartite consensus over statutory mandate in workplace matters — but they increased the social and regulatory cost of blanket refusal. For parents with young children, workplace flexibility was consistently rated in IPS surveys as the most valued support intervention, above any cash payment.

The Forward Singapore reframe also engaged with the housing dimension of family formation in a way that earlier M&P packages had treated only peripherally. BTO (Build-To-Order) flat prioritisation for married couples and parents had existed since the early 2000s, but the Forward Singapore process generated a renewed public discussion about whether the housing system — including the resale flat market, where prices had risen sharply in 2021–2022 — was compatible with early family formation. The response was primarily on the supply and priority side: more BTO flats with shorter waiting times for families with children, additional housing grants for first-time buyers who were married with children. The root cause — the structural relationship between HDB flat prices as a retirement asset and the cost burden on young families — was not addressed.

The policy significance of the Forward Singapore reframe may ultimately lie less in its specific M&P measures than in its shift in the government's own self-understanding of why pro-natal policy had not worked. The acknowledgement that structural conditions — not merely insufficient financial incentives — were driving the fertility decline opened a policy space that earlier packages had foreclosed. Whether subsequent governments would be willing to make the structural interventions that this acknowledgement logically implied — transforming the childcare system toward a Nordic model, creating a genuine legal right to flexible work, addressing housing costs as a family-formation barrier — remained, as of 2026, an open question.

---

9. The TFR Trajectory — Persistent Decline Despite Policy Innovation

The quantitative record of Singapore's TFR from 1987 to 2026 is both the most important evidence in evaluating the M&P programme and the most frequently misread. It is sometimes described as showing that pro-natal policy "failed," as if the expected counterfactual were stable or rising fertility. The appropriate counterfactual is less clear: what would the TFR have been in the absence of any M&P programme? It is possible — though not demonstrable — that the TFR would have declined even faster without the interventions. What is clear is that no enhancement has produced a sustained upward reversal of the trend.

The broad TFR trajectory (resident TFR per DOS / NPTD) approximated: 1.62 (1987) → 1.80 (1997, peak in pro-natal era) → ≈1.48 (1998, AFC) → ≈1.41 (2001) → ≈1.26 (2003) → ≈1.26 (2004, the "Year of the Monkey" produced a birth-number uptick of ~8% but the period TFR did not return to 1.76; doc-internal historic claims of 1.76 in 2004 are not supported by DOS time-series and have been removed) → 1.29 (2007 — Year of the Pig) → 1.22 (2009) → 1.15 (2010, Year of the Tiger trough) → 1.20 (2012) → 1.24 (2014) → 1.14 (2019) → ≈1.10 (2020) → 1.04 (2022) → 0.97 (2023) → ≈0.97 (2024) → 0.87 (2025) ⚠Requires verification.

Several features of this trajectory warrant analytical attention. The 1997 peak at 1.80 coincided with a period of rapid economic growth and has been partially attributed to the delayed recovery of birth-timing decisions that were suppressed during the anti-natalist period — couples who had planned to have children were doing so once the disincentives were removed. This cohort effect was one-time; once it exhausted itself, the underlying structural trend resumed.

Single-year uplifts around culturally auspicious years (Year of the Monkey 2004, Year of the Pig 2007) are sometimes cited as evidence that the Baby Bonus worked. A more cautious reading notes that the Year of the Monkey (2004) is considered auspicious in Chinese culture for births — as was the Year of the Pig (2007), which also produced a modest uptick. Birth-timing effects around auspicious years are well-documented in East Asian demographic data and can produce single-year spikes of 5–15% in birth numbers that rapidly revert in subsequent years. Gavin Jones, in his comparative analyses of Southeast Asian fertility, explicitly cautions against interpreting auspicious-year bumps as policy effects.

Leong Chan-Hoong's IPS studies on Marriage and Parenthood Aspirations Survey (MPAS) data — conducted in 2012 and updated periodically — document a consistent pattern: Singaporeans' fertility intentions remain higher than their actual fertility behaviour. Most married Singaporeans report wanting two or more children; the gap between intention and behaviour has widened over successive survey waves. The most commonly cited barriers are financial costs (specifically housing, childcare, and education), career impact (more acute for women), and the general time pressure of Singapore's work culture. The gap between aspiration and behaviour suggests that the M&P package's failure is not a failure to communicate or to incentivise: Singaporeans broadly want what the government wants them to want. They find themselves unable to do it.

The sub-1.0 readings of 2023 and beyond are qualitatively as well as quantitatively significant. A TFR below 1.0 means that each generation of Singaporeans is producing less than half the number of children needed to replace itself. At this rate, without immigration, the citizen population would halve within two generations. The 2025 figure of 0.87 places Singapore in a global cohort of three — alongside South Korea and Hong Kong — whose fertility rates have crossed below the threshold that any policy package, however generous, has ever reversed in a sustained way.

The ethnic divergence in TFR is both analytically important and politically sensitive. The Malay community's consistently higher TFR — approximately 1.58 in 2024 against a Chinese TFR of approximately 0.83 — reflects differences in religious culture (Islam does not discourage large families), family structure, and housing patterns. The Malay community has a higher proportion of multigenerational households that reduce the effective cost of childcare. But the Malay TFR has also been declining and, if the Chinese community's trajectory is predictive, will continue to do so. The Indian community's TFR of approximately 0.91 suggests that recently-arrived Indian professionals — who constitute a significant share of the citizen Indian population — are fully adopting Singapore's low-fertility norms.

---

10. Why Singapore Pro-Natalism Doesn't Work — Economic, Cultural, Time-Use Critiques

The failure of Singapore's M&P programme to reverse the fertility decline has generated a substantial body of analytical literature, converging on three interconnected critiques: the economic cost structure of parenthood in Singapore, the cultural norms that govern parenting aspirations, and the time-use and gender dynamics that make parenthood incompatible with dual-career professional life.

The economic cost critique begins with housing. Singapore's public housing system — the HDB — has been one of the government's most celebrated achievements, providing home ownership to approximately 80% of the resident population. But HDB flats have also become, by design, the primary vehicle for household asset accumulation and retirement security. The system that makes Singaporeans homeowners also makes first-time buyers pay very high prices — and prices have risen substantially faster than median incomes in the 2020s. A young couple seeking a four-room BTO flat near employment centres in 2024 faces a substantial financial commitment. The mortgage commitment, combined with the expectation that children will require significant investment in enrichment education — tuition, music, sport, coding classes — produces a household financial calculus in which another child competes directly with other consumption and investment priorities. The Baby Bonus, however large, does not alter this fundamental arithmetic: it offsets a small fraction of the lifetime cost differential.

Childcare costs compound the housing burden. Singapore's infant care sector — full-day care for children under 18 months — is the most expensive in the region. Even with substantial government subsidies, the out-of-pocket monthly cost for full-day infant care at a government-anchor operator centre has remained several hundred dollars, and at private centres can be substantially more. For a family with two children in care simultaneously, the monthly childcare bill approaches or exceeds the mortgage payment on a BTO flat. Researchers at the Institute of Policy Studies, including Leong Chan-Hoong and Mathew Mathews, have documented that childcare cost is the single most frequently cited financial barrier to fertility in survey data.

The education investment norm — the expectation that competitive Singaporean parents will invest heavily in enrichment activities and private tuition — adds a further perceived cost that is not directly addressed by the M&P package. The private tuition industry in Singapore is estimated to be worth on the order of S$1 billion or more annually, although market-sizing studies vary considerably in scope and methodology [TBD-VERIFY against a specific Household Expenditure Survey / MOE / MTI source]. While this expenditure is not required for children to progress through the education system, it has become normatively expected in significant segments of the middle class. Parents who are already uncertain about having children factor in the shadow cost of competitive parenting; the M&P package addresses only the formal, official cost, not the normative cost.

The cultural critique, developed most systematically by Gavin Jones in his comparative work on East Asian ultra-low fertility, identifies the achievement orientation and educational competition that characterise Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong as the proximate cultural cause of fertility decline. In all four societies, the dominant cultural script assigns enormous weight to educational achievement as the primary determinant of adult life outcomes. This script creates powerful incentives to invest intensively in each child — which in turn makes having multiple children financially and practically daunting. Jones argues that this "quality-quantity trade-off" dynamic, which economists have long theorised but demographers have observed most starkly in East Asia, operates largely independently of government pro-natal incentives.

The time-use and gender critique is the most recent and, arguably, the most analytically powerful. Detailed time-use surveys — including those conducted by the Department of Statistics Singapore and the IPS — consistently show that in Singapore households with children, women carry a disproportionate share of caregiving and household management time even when both partners are in full-time employment. The disparity has narrowed somewhat in younger cohorts, but it has not converged to approximate parity. The practical consequence is that a professional woman contemplating a second or third child is, in the Singapore institutional context, contemplating a disproportionate additional burden relative to her male partner. Paternity leave take-up below entitlement levels — particularly in private sector firms — reinforces the asymmetry.

The sociological dimension of this time-use disparity is complicated by the FDW institution. Many middle- and upper-income Singapore households manage the domestic labour burden by employing a live-in FDW, who provides childcare, household management, and often elder care. The FDW levy concession addresses this model. But domestic workers are not a solution to the gender equity dimension of the fertility problem: they substitute for the female partner's unpaid labour without altering the underlying normative expectation that the woman bears primary responsibility for the domestic sphere. The presence of a FDW can make having children practically manageable without eliminating the career-impact anxiety that drives female fertility hesitation.

Theresa Devasahayam and Brenda Yeoh's edited volume Working and Mothering in Asia (NIAS Press, 2007) provides detailed Singapore case material on the career-parenthood trade-off experienced by professional women. Their subjects consistently describe a perception that Singapore's corporate culture does not genuinely accommodate parenthood — that flexible work arrangement rights on paper translate into career penalties in practice, that maternal leave is resented by supervisors, and that the perception of reduced commitment following childbirth leads to slower promotions. This cultural-workplace dimension of the fertility problem is not addressable by cash transfers; it requires sustained cultural and labour market transformation that the government has been unwilling to mandate and unable to cajole.

---

11. Comparative Lens — Singapore vs Japan, Korea, Taiwan

Singapore's ultra-low fertility is most productively understood through comparison with the small group of societies that share its demographic predicament. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong all experienced dramatic fertility declines in the late twentieth century, and all have implemented pro-natal policies of varying ambition and design. The comparative record provides a sobering forecast for Singapore's own trajectory.

South Korea, with a TFR of approximately 0.72 in 2023 and reportedly close to 0.68–0.75 in 2024 ⚠Requires verification, is the extreme case. The Korean government has spent very large sums on pro-natal measures since 2006 — media accounts of cumulative spending range across 200–380 trillion won depending on scope of measures included — with no demographic reversal ⚠Requires verification. Korean commentary has increasingly concluded that no combination of financial incentives can overcome the structural deterrents embedded in the country's housing market, competitive education culture, and labour market rigidities — almost exactly the analysis that applies to Singapore. The Korean case offers Singapore both a worst-case trajectory and a data point suggesting that sustained investment in the current M&P model will not produce convergence toward replacement-level fertility.

Japan's experience is distinctive in having high childless rates among women alongside a relatively higher TFR than Singapore or Korea — approximately 1.20–1.26 in the early 2020s, drifting downward toward 1.20 by 2023 ⚠Requires verification. Japan's government has progressively expanded parental leave entitlements — Japanese fathers now have among the most generous paternity leave entitlements in OECD countries (up to four weeks fully paid) — but actual take-up has been extremely low, historically below 10% for men, though rising toward 20–30% in recent years following government campaigns. The Japan case demonstrates that legislating generous leave does not automatically change workplace culture: take-up depends on supervisory norms and peer behaviour that are slow to change. Singapore's paternity leave take-up trajectory bears watching for similar dynamics.

Taiwan offers a closer comparison to Singapore in economic structure and cultural context. Taiwan's TFR fell below 1.0 in 2010 and has remained in the 0.85–0.99 range since. The Taiwan government's pro-natal programme includes cash grants, subsidised childcare, parental leave, and housing measures. The demographic literature on Taiwan consistently identifies high housing costs in Taipei (structurally similar to Singapore's situation), educational competition, and workplace culture as the primary deterrents. Gavin Jones and Saw Swee-Hock both compare Singapore-Taiwan trajectories in their respective analyses of East Asian fertility, noting that the two city-states share not only demographic characteristics but also the policy paradox of substantial government investment yielding minimal fertility response.

The Nordic contrast is instructive precisely because it is not fully replicable in Singapore. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland have maintained TFRs in the 1.5–1.9 range (though with downward drift in recent years) through a combination of universal, highly subsidised childcare (with fees capped as a percentage of household income), genuinely shared parental leave with significant "use it or lose it" provisions for fathers, strong employment protection for parents returning from leave, and a broader social model that does not treat childcare as the primary responsibility of individual families. The Nordic model works because it addresses the time-use, childcare cost, and workplace culture dimensions simultaneously — and because it is embedded in a political culture that has sustained the necessary fiscal commitment over decades.

Singapore's government has drawn selectively on Nordic models — paternity leave legislation, childcare subsidy expansion, flexible work arrangement guidelines — without replicating the universal, rights-based architecture that makes the Nordic approach effective. The reason is partly fiscal (universal high-quality childcare requires sustained, large-scale public expenditure); partly ideological (Singapore's governance model strongly resists universal entitlements and unconditional transfers); and partly cultural (the "many helping hands" philosophy, which assigns primary care responsibility to family rather than state, is deeply embedded in Singapore's social policy framework). The Forward Singapore process moved rhetorically in the direction of greater state responsibility for the conditions of parenthood, but the institutional and fiscal implications of that shift had not been fully operationalised by 2026.

The most important comparative insight is structural rather than programmatic: fertility decline in high-income East Asian societies is driven primarily by conditions that pro-natal packages address only at the margin. Housing costs, educational competition, workplace culture, and gender inequality in domestic labour are the proximate causes. Pro-natal packages that address only the cash cost of parenthood will not reverse these structural dynamics. The societies that have maintained fertility rates closer to replacement — Nordic, French, to some extent American — have done so through a combination of structural conditions that Singapore has not replicated and, in the current ideological environment, shows limited appetite to replicate.

---

12. Conclusion

Singapore's Marriage and Parenthood Package represents one of the most sustained and comprehensively designed pro-natal policy programmes in the world. Its failure to reverse the fertility decline is not a failure of policy design in the narrow sense — each component of the package is rationally derived from a diagnosis of what barriers prevent parenthood. It is a failure at the system level: a developmental model that has been extraordinarily successful at generating wealth and human capital has also, as an inescapable by-product, generated the conditions under which having children is costly, inconvenient, and culturally non-mandatory in ways that no amount of Baby Bonus cash can overcome.

The trajectory from 1.62 in 1987 to 0.87 in 2025 — a decline of 46% in the TFR over nearly four decades of active pro-natal policy — speaks for itself. The government has not been passive or negligent: it has continuously innovated, expanded, and reframed the package; it has engaged with the problem across every applicable policy domain; it has spent substantial public resources. But the structural forces operating against fertility — housing costs, educational competition, gender inequality in care work, intense labour market competition, the premium on individual achievement — are precisely the forces that Singapore's developmental model simultaneously produces and depends upon.

The Forward Singapore reframe, which acknowledged structural conditions rather than focusing exclusively on financial incentives, opened a more promising analytical direction. If future governments are prepared to treat universal, high-quality, affordable childcare as a public good rather than a subsidised private service; to create genuine and enforceable rights to flexible work; to address the housing cost burden on young families through structural rather than grant-based mechanisms; and to shift the normative expectations around men's participation in domestic care — then there is at least a theoretical path toward stabilising fertility at a somewhat higher level. Whether such structural interventions are politically achievable within Singapore's governance model is the central open question of pro-natal policy for the next decade.

What is not in question is that the current trajectory is fiscally and demographically unsustainable. At a TFR of 0.87, immigration is not merely an optional complement to domestic births; it is a structural necessity. Singapore will need to continue importing people at scale to sustain its economy and its social security systems. Managing this reality — which means managing the political economy of immigration, integration, and national identity — has become inseparable from the M&P programme's own logic. Pro-natal policy and immigration policy are two instruments addressing the same problem. Neither, so far, has been sufficient.

---

13. Spiral Index

Related corpus documents for deeper exploration:

• SG-D-19 — Population Policy — From "Stop at Two" to "Have Three or More": the parent document covering the full population policy history including the anti-natalist era; essential reading for the 1987 reversal context.
• SG-J-27 — The 2013 Population White Paper: detailed analysis of the political crisis surrounding the 6.9 million projection, which shaped the 2013 M&P package's political context.
• SG-D-38 — Aging Policy and the Action Plan for Successful Ageing: the institutional response to the demographic aging that the fertility decline has accelerated.
• SG-O-05 — Demographic Aging — Governance Under a Silver Tsunami: broader mega-trend analysis of aging's fiscal and social implications.
• SG-G-08 — Women's Charter and Gender Policy: the gender equality framework within which M&P policy's assumptions about care work are embedded.
• SG-G-10 — Family Policy: the broader family policy context including divorce, custody, and eldercare obligations.
• SG-G-40 — MOE Kindergartens and Early Childhood: the early childhood education framework that intersects with childcare subsidy policy.
• SG-M-05 — The Social Contract: the philosophical architecture of Singapore's quid-pro-quo governance model, within which pro-natal policy is a specific application.
• SG-L-19 — PMO Speech Anthology — Social Policy and the Welfare-Productivity Bargain: primary source rhetoric on the welfare-work bargain, including relevant NDR addresses on family and population.
• SG-D-01 — Housing Policy: the HDB story, whose asset-pricing logic intersects with family formation costs.
• SG-E-06 — Central Provident Fund: the CPF architecture, within which MediSave Maternity and CDA mechanisms are embedded.

---

Sources

1. Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF), Baby Bonus Scheme — policy documentation, press releases, and enhancement announcements, 2001–2024. Available at: www.msf.gov.sg/what-we-do/marriage-and-parenthood.

2. National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), Prime Minister's Office, Population in Brief (annual series, 2003–2025). Singapore: NPTD. Key source for annual TFR, citizen births, marriage rates, and immigration data.

3. Department of Statistics Singapore (DOS), Population Trends (annual series, 1970–2025). Singapore: DOS. Definitive source for demographic time series.

4. Saw Swee-Hock, Population Policies and Programmes in Singapore. Singapore: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute, 2012. The most systematic quantitative history of Singapore's population policy from pre-independence to the 2001 Baby Bonus era.

5. Gavin W. Jones, "Ultra-Low Fertility in East and South-East Asia: Policy Responses and Prospects," Asian Population Studies, vol. 3, no. 3 (2007), pp. 237–254. The benchmark comparative analysis of East Asian ultra-low fertility, with Singapore case material.

6. Gavin W. Jones and Paulin Tay Straughan, eds., Ultra-Low Fertility in Pacific Asia: Trends, Causes and Policy Issues. London: Routledge, 2008. Edited volume situating Singapore's fertility decline in comparative perspective.

7. Yap Mui Teng, "Singapore's Population Policies: Managing Growth and Ageing," in Management of Success: Singapore Revisited, ed. Terence Chong. Singapore: ISEAS, 2010, pp. 209–234. Policy analysis of the 1987–2008 pro-natal era.

8. Leong Chan-Hoong, Marriage and Parenthood Aspirations Survey (MPAS). Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, 2012 and subsequent waves. Key survey source on the gap between fertility intentions and behaviour.

9. Leong Chan-Hoong and Mathew Mathews, eds., Navigating the Slippery Slope: Singapore's Fertility Conundrum. Singapore: Institute of Policy Studies, 2013. IPS-assembled analysis of the multi-dimensional barriers to parenthood.

10. Theresa Devasahayam and Brenda S.A. Yeoh, eds., Working and Mothering in Asia: Images, Ideologies and Identities. Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2007. Qualitative case studies including Singapore on the career-parenthood trade-off.

11. National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore: Population White Paper. Singapore: Prime Minister's Office, January 2013. The foundational document for understanding why M&P is inseparable from the immigration debate.

12. Ministry of Manpower Singapore, Singapore Yearbook of Manpower Statistics (annual series, 2000–2024). Source for labour force participation rates, flexible work arrangement data, and parental leave take-up statistics.

13. Ministry of Finance Singapore, Budget Statements (annual, 2001–2026). Primary source for fiscal allocations to Baby Bonus, childcare subsidies, WMCR, and ART subsidy programmes.

14. Parliament of Singapore, Hansard — debates on: Population (Amendment) Bills; Child Development Co-Savings (Amendment) Bills; Employment (Amendment) Bills relating to maternity and paternity leave (various years, 2001–2024). Primary source for legislative history and parliamentary debate on M&P measures.

15. Government of Singapore, Forward Singapore: Building Our Shared Future Together. Singapore: PMO, October 2023. The 2023 social compact reframe, including the Care pillar's treatment of fertility and family formation.

16. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Family Database: TFR, childcare enrolment, parental leave entitlements and uptake — cross-national comparison data (various years). Accessed at: www.oecd.org/els/family/database.htm.

17. Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), IPS-Nathan Lectures and related IPS working papers on population and demography (various years, 2012–2025). Source for Singapore-based policy research on fertility.

18. Central Provident Fund Board (CPF Board), Child Development Account — implementation documentation, annual CDA statistics, and enhancement press releases (2001–2024).

19. Ministry of Health Singapore, Assisted Reproduction Technology — subsidy schedules, eligibility criteria, and policy documents (2001–2024). Available at: www.moh.gov.sg.

20. Statistics Korea / Korean Statistical Information Service (KOSIS), Total Fertility Rate Korea (annual series, 2000–2024). Comparative data for Singapore-Korea analysis.

21. Japan, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research (NIPSSR), Vital Statistics of Japan and Population Projections for Japan (various years). Comparative data for Japan-Singapore analysis.

22. National Development Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, Social Indicators (annual series). Source for Taiwan TFR comparison.