Stay-at-home Moms

I refer to these article: 
Unfair to subsidise childcare for mums who opt not to work
Nothing for stay-at-home mothers in govt Budgets
2 nights ago, there was a discussion on whether stay-at-home moms (SAHMs for ease of typing) should get paid. Although I did not listen in on the discussion (as I was busy watching Let It Go on Channel U), I have a rough gauge on what the discussion was pertaining to (after searching the net as well).

Should families with SAHMs be subsidised for kindergarten/ childcare? (And wait, there's a difference between kindergarten and childcare?!)
Do SAHMs deserve the same subsidies on childcare as working mums?
Under what circumstances should SAHMs be compensated? And in what ways?

Now, for the first question: should families with SAHMs be subsidised for kindergarten/ childcare? Do they deserve the same subsidies as working mums?
First off, the difference between a kindergarten and childcare is:

• Childcare: FULL day care for your children, with meals
• Kindergarten: HALF day care for your child

So, working mums would typically belong in the child care category given that they are probably working all day. This explains the government subsidies on childcare for working mums only.

Now, let's look at the agenda behind the government subsidies for childcare for WORKING mums: the government wants to make it easier for working adults to start families. Furthermore, it is a kind of 'reward' for the mother who has decided to sacrifice time with her children in order to work. Hence, the government's aim is to basically encourage adults to work and have children at the same time. The reason is quite clear in that Singapore does not have much resource other than manpower, which is also tightening due to recent foreign labour policies.

In that case, if SAHMs are given subsidies for childcare (which would be weird, because didn't SAHM stay at home precisely because they wanted to take care of their kids?!), it would definitely discount the working mums who chose to sacrifice her own free time to work and pay taxes, which SAHMs do not.

In the article Nothing for stay-at-home mothers in govt Budgets, a SAHM Faith A Tan wrote, "... all these years, the annual Budget has had nothing for stay-at-home mothers. This is disheartening, as we are contributing to raising the next generation."

While she has certainly made a valid point about SAHMs raising the next generation, this applies to working mums as well. Are they not raising the next generation as well? In fact, if I may add, they are not only raising the next generation, but also contributing to the workforce. 

If you term 'raising' in other terms, such as character, then I would like to ask for one not to be too quick to judge. Just because one is raising her child at home personally does not mean that the child would grow up to be one of great character, wholesome growth... etc (you get the point). A child's character gets shaped in different ways. A child who goes to childcare might learn to make friends and be sociable. A child who sees the mom working hard during the day might learn the importance of being independent in order not to be a burden to her. Some of these skills might not be learnt with a SAHM.

Beside, being a SAHM is mostly one of personal choice. If that's the path that one, as a mother, has chosen, then one would have to be prepared for the circumstances ahead. Asking for financial assistance while being an SAHM who chooses family over work is not being fair to the working moms who chose to sacrifice family time to lighten the family's financial burden.

Furthermore, quantifying how much a mother gets paid for looking after her own child would just be weird. Looking after one's child is a duty, an obligation. If one simply chooses to spend more time with her child, does that mean should one get paid more?

That being said, there are of course extraordinary circumstances where a SAHM should be entitled to some form of help, but these can be filed under other types of assistance schemes, not one specially for SAHM.
Older SAHMs who have a divorce - alimony would usually be given by their husbands. Or if the husband is unable to afford it, the state should step in. In this case as well, the payment should only last for a few years to help offset any difficulties that the woman may face in finding employment after so many years staying at home. Afterwards, it would be unfair to force the husband to continue paying alimony, especially if the divorce was something they mutually agreed on.
SAHMs who have no choice - the child/family members has a serious illness (e.g. Down syndrome) and requires an immediate caretaker. For such cases, financial help should fall under help given to families with disabled members. Not sure if MSF has any assistance schemes for this. Either way, help given to such SAHMs should fall under a broader category, rather than a special category just for SAHMs.

Anyway, while I understand the dedication and trade-offs that SAHMs may face, let's not exaggerate and excessively glorify their sacrifices. Being a SAHM is still ultimately a personal choice with personal consequences, and it should stay like that.