Much lip-service has been given to the need of family-friendly measures to strengthen the family. But it seems to me that the true focus of these measures and services is economic growth and not the development and welfare of the family and its members.
A case in point is the care service for schoolchildren, Klabb 3-16, which will be offered by the Foundation for Education Services.
At face value, the concept of offering ongoing formation services is laudable since it helps our youngsters develop and to become interested in various aspects of life. However, the motives and the way subsidy schemes are being introduced are worrying. The foundation stated that Klabb 3-16 is intended as a child-minding service.
The intentions behind this service are further made clear when considered in conjunction with the subsidy scheme that will be offered by the government with funds provided by the European programme 'Creative Lives, Creative Schools'. The subsidy is explicitly intended to promote the return to work of parents (normally females) and to encourage those working part-time or reduced hours to return to a full-time job.
At a superficial level, one can only praise the authorities for helping parents cope better with their duties and commitments, but one should question whether these are truly family-friendly measures or just state pressures on the individual.
Who is at the centre of these services? Is it the individual and the family or the state and the economy? Has the people become secondary to economic interests? If not, how come people who have made the conscious decision to spend more time with children are either ignored or put at a disadvantage?
Another two measures that come to mind are the well publicised Budget measures to exempt mothers returning to work after five years from tax for one year, and to exempt mothers who return to work after childbirth. Ironically, parents who opted to use their unpaid leave to take care of their children for five years will not be exempt from tax.
The message is clear: give priority to your contribution in the workforce and not to the formation and upbringing of your children.
As a working mother who has chosen to work reduced hours in order to invest more time in the formation and nurturing of my children and in promoting healthy relationships, it seems to me that I am continuously getting the message that I am not conforming with the values of the state.
It seems that the state assumes that if one does not have a full-time job, one is either well-off or not interested in one's personal development and in pursuing a career, or worse, one is apathetic to the well-being of the State and society.
Lest I be misunderstood, I am not against these so-called family measures per se. However, I do expect the government and policy-makers to put the welfare of the family unit before any other utilitarian consideration. Helping those who choose to give priority to their family and the upbringing of their children is no luxury but an investment in healthy humans who can contribute to the welfare of society and consequently to the development of the economy.