When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Geopolitics

China: The Public's Right To Speak Up On Family Planning Policy

The CCP is not used to sharing the decision-making role with the public, but that may be exactly what all sides need to try to encourage more Chinese people to have babies.

The three-child policy represents a major readjustment of China’s birth control principle.
The three-child policy represents a major readjustment of China’s birth control principle.
Economic Observer Editorial

-Analysis-

BEIJING — On May 31st, China announced its new so-called "three-child policy" that allows couples to have three children. The policy was announced just 20 days after the release of the results of the Seventh National Population Census. They show the country's trend of an aging population is worsening, with only 12 million new births recorded in 2020, the lowest since 1960. This isn't a coincidence.

As the meeting minutes of the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) state, the policy is to further optimize the relevant supporting measures of family planning guidelines, to improve the population structure, and to implement a national strategy by actively respond to the demographic aging, so as to maintain the advantages of the country's human resource endowment.

Even though this still is far from responding to the public's expectation of a full easing of a couples' birth limit, the three-child policy represents nonetheless a major readjustment of China's birth control principle.

It's worth pointing out that not only are couples now allowed to have three children instead of two, the National Health Commission which is in charge of family planning, pointed out that complaints over policy issues such as marriage, child-raising and education should also be addressed. This includes providing young people with guidance on family and marriage values, advocacy to correct bad wedding customs such as the expectation of a very high dowry, a universal childcare system, promotion of educational equity, supply of high-quality educational resources and reduction of education costs.

We believe the public should have a full say.

Indeed, the above-mentioned issues are all well-noted "pain points' that affect young people's willingness to have babies. Therefore, the adjustment in tackling these problems can be regarded as a comprehensive reflection on parenting policies.

The Politburo meeting proposed that by improving maternity leave and the insurance system, by strengthening supporting measures in taxation and housing, and by protecting the legal rights and interests of women in employment, the aim of establishing a more complete maternity protection network can be achieved. And the beneficiaries should include all families from one child to two or three children.

The relevant policy details have not yet been announced, but we believe that the public should have a full say in this. These policies concern all those who are going to be parents and those who will be parents in the future, and will ultimately concern every family. Hence, the government's decision-making agencies ought to listen to the public's expression of their interests. This involves a process of open discussion and full interaction. Unless there exists a positive response and participation from the public, the effectiveness of the policy may be greatly compromised.

Meanwhile, tackling the above issues should be cohesively and organically combined, rather than being advanced individually by each relevant department. The family planning policy's complexity implies taking into consideration the various social and economic aspects, including human resources, social security, finance and taxation, education, and housing.

Only 12 million new births were recorded in 2020, the lowest since 1960 — Photo: Sheldon Cooper/SOPA Images via ZUMA Wire

Any link in the chain which fails to keep up with changes and demand may create loopholes in this birth protection network. In the past, perhaps because family planning is a sensitive and complicated issue, the related governmental departments had not been enthusiastic to hear the public's opinions. Yet, going from allowing couples to have two children if one of the couple is a single child him or herself, to then allowing two children, and then the currently three children, the policy has always provoked lively debates between the authorities and the people. Objectively, it is these discussions that accelerated the announcement of the government's policies.

This is all the more reason that the supporting measures of the three-child policy should absorb past experience, and respond to the public's demands in a realistic manner based on accurate research. This will make up for shortcomings in all these areas linked to reproduction to child-raising, and thus help reduce parenting anxiety. There has been no shortage of experts and scholars with suggestions and policy advice. For example, one expert suggested that a fertility fund should be levied, while another from the entrepreneurial sphere said that "one should complete the most basic reproductive responsibility by giving birth to two children before he or she has the right to use contraceptive products', and so on.

We welcome constructive opinions based on rationality, however, it should be said that some of these suggestions have gone to the opposite pole of a serious marital and childbirth policy.

The basic feature of this rhetoric is that many don't regard child-bearing as a basic right, but more as a tool for achieving economic and social purposes. Based on this, a punishment and reward mechanism is set. We believe that any good family planning policy ought to be based on respecting peoples' fundamental rights so that each family can freely make their own choice.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

Patronage Or Politics? What's Driving Qatar And Egypt Grand Rapprochement

For Cairo, Qatar had been part of an “axis of evil,” with anger directed at Al Jazeera, the main Qatari outlet, and others critical of Egypt after the Muslim Brotherhood ouster. But the vitriol is now gone, with the first ever visit by Egyptian President al-Sisi to Doha.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi met with the Emir of Qatar in June 2022 in Cairo

Beesan Kassab, Daniel O'Connell, Ehsan Salah, Hazem Tharwat and Najih Dawoud

For the first time since coming to power in 2014, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi traveled to Doha last month on an official visit, a capstone in a steadily building rapprochement between the two countries in the last year.

Not long ago, however, the photo-op capturing the two heads of state smiling at one another in Doha would have seemed impossible. In the wake of the Armed Forces’ ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013, Qatar and Egypt traded barbs.

In the lexicon of the intelligence-controlled Egyptian press landscape, Qatar had been part of an “axis of evil” working to undermine Egypt’s stability. Al Jazeera, the main Qatari outlet, was banned from Egypt, but, from its social media accounts and television broadcast, it regularly published salacious and insulting details about the Egyptian administration.

But all of that vitriol is now gone.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ