After an official announcement nearly a week ago that schools in Macau would close down until February 10 or a later date as a measure to contain the spread of the Wuhan coronavirus, the Social Affairs Bureau (IAS) has issued a statement this week announcing the closure of government-funded nurseries until further notice, requesting private ones to follow suit.
The new type of coronavirus, which has already infected more people than the SARS in 2003, with over 6,000 cases currently recorded worldwide is reason for much concern and the government has unfolded several preventive measures, some later than others, to protect citizens, especially the young.
The closure of daycare establishments, kindergartens, and schools alike is a safe call, but also one that engenders some difficulties for day-to-day family life. Of course, many sectors of society are taking a toll. This Chinese New Year will likely be one of the slowest revenue-making years, with a vertiginous drop of visitors’ entries in the city. But the lucrative casinos surely have the means to cope with the financial loss and recover it some other time.
I’d like though to call readers attention to a related but longer-term matter, which concerns recent comments by Choi Sio Yuen, head of the Society Mutual Assistance Department within IAS, who argued parents should refrain from putting children into nurseries before they reach 2 years of age. Mr. Choi claimed young children’s mental, physical, and moral development are dependent on their parents. It is a sensible conclusion, but Mr. Choi’s motivations also stem from a different concern: overdemand in the northern districts and slow response capacity due to dependence on prior accomplishment of other government projects.
Having both parents or one of the parents staying home to take care of a child for two years will likely hurt a family financially, if not morally. All joys of parenthood apart, the duties of daily care, which usually fall on the mother, can be demoralizing, especially for women who had an active professional life before childbirth.
Moreover, the government recommending kids stay home until they are 2 years old in a city where the maternity leave spans some scant 56 calendar days (90 days for civil servants) is scandalous.
In suggesting families take care of their offspring during early age, knowing that mothers are supposed to return to work within three months or less, the government is sending a confusing message. If mothers are quickly pushed back to resume professional life (and many do so because they do not have a choice, while many others quit their jobs to take care of their kids), whose responsibility is it for child rearing? If the government wants instead progenitors to stay home, who will cover for financial costs in the family? Is the IAS hinting the government or legislators to advance the proposal for a longer maternity leave or is it suggesting a subsidy be created for parents to stay home?
If nothing of this is on the decision makers’ minds, then the government is trading a social responsibility and financial burden over families for its incapacity to act more efficiently, while also fostering both a ‘maid culture’ and the traditional children care role of grandparents, which is not a given for every single parent in town.
The parental leave and childcare matter in Macau still show a clear lack of comprehensive policy orientation. Government, social departments and legislators ought to coordinate better to get out some dust of old, conservative, and truly harmful ideas for the functioning of a healthier society.
Sheyla Zandonai
No Comments