THEIR mothers and the government harp every so often: ""Having a child will make you a better person.''

However many times they have heard it, the truth is: They just do not want what friends who "have it all'' have.

They do not want to cram for tests, sort out maid crises and wake up at dawn to pacify screaming Junior after working all day.

Many of these upwardly-mobile, married young Singaporean women who control their biology with pills and chart their lives with Palm Vs just do not want children -- yet. But will they ever want to? Can cash handouts change their minds and make them more attuned to their biological clocks?

It is unlikely, most say. As the picture stands, sociologists, doctors and family counsellors say they still see too many dollars and hurdles and too little sense in breeding.

Also, money is too trite a tactic with a country which has made a spectacular transition from poverty to prosperity.

Counselling and Care Centre's clinical director Anthony Yeo notes that fewer children or childlessness by choice is a world-wide symptom of most developed countries.

"What we are doing may be too little and too late,'' he says.

If you do the sums, as many point out, the government's Baby Bonus, of up to $9000 for the second child and up to $18,000 for the third, will not make a decisive difference for better-educated parents, whom the government makes no secret it really wants.

For those with two children, the subsidy works out to $2 per child per day over a six-year period -- at the end of which, a parent's duty is by no means done yet.

Many, like Dr Paul Tan, a gynaecologist and Singapore Planned Parenthood Association member, feel that the Government is ""barking up the wrong tree'' by offering money.

Only the lower socio-economic group, he says, will jump on the breeding bandwagon to add a few more dollars to their kitty.

The better-heeled will still look beyond monetary incentives at issues like child-care options, the stressful education system and, basically, what gives once a shrieking bundle intrudes on a married couple's idyllic lifestyle.

The price of Pampers and S26 milk powder is probably at the bottom of their worry-list.

Throwing money at the problem, says public relations manager Monica Tan, 30, takes it a tad too literally.

The mother of a three-year-old says that when people complain it is costly to have babies, they really mean that they are unwilling to give up their current lifestyle.

""We still want to live in condominiums, buy our children toys without thinking twice and send them to university. It doesn't really mean that the kid will starve,'' she says.

Sure, she and other mothers say, the money will come in handy but it only alleviates the smallest problem.

Says Ms Livia Chua, 36, a copywriter who became a housewife six years ago when her son was born: ""The primary hurdle is not money. It's the mindset, the attitude, the availability -- and not much the costs -- of resources.''

The most scarce commodity of all, she says, is time to be a good mummy.

But she concedes that this Baby Bonus issue is fraught with complications -- no matter what measures the government introduces to help couples cope with the financial burden of raising a family, it is ""in no position'' to address the more basic question of why women should even consider having a baby a bonus in the first place.

In an e-mail interview, Mr Eddie Teo, who is Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister's Office and heads the Working Committee on Marriage and Procreation, says that his committee was deeply aware that ""no other country has ever succeeded in raising the fertility rate, not even Sweden''.

Sweden, which is one of the earliest countries to attempt social engineering and boasts an impressive array of child allowances and subsidies, managed to boost its birth rate from 1.61 in 1983, to 2.13 in the early 1990s.

But after recession struck, the birth rate has sunk back to 1.5, which is the same as Singapore's.

""Telling the government that it could not be done was a real option,'' he recounts.

But surveys and feedback showed there are Singaporeans who wish to tie the knot and have babies early so the committee set about helping to remove the various financial or child-care obstacles they faced.

""We were conscious that decisions pertaining to marriage and procreation are personal ones and the government should not come across as telling people what to do. We want to help those who wish to marry and have children, but face problems doing so,'' he says.

But even so, he says he is ""not sure'' if these measures are enough to hike the birth rate to 2.1, which is needed to replace the population.

Many say that while these may nudge those contemplating No 2 or No 3 to go ahead, no one honestly expects it to make any dent in the determination of those who have decided to stop at zero.

The problem is the government has no real answers to the personal and delicate quandaries that bug young women today, such as ""What's the point of having a baby if you seldom see it?'" or ""Why give up everything I've worked so hard for?''

Certainly, they have no answers that money can buy.

Subliminal or strident?

MESSAGES

SHOULD the government sit quietly and wait hopefully -- like many in-laws do -- for the biological urges of young Singaporean women to warm up to babies?

Or should the pro-family Public Education Committee under Senior Parliamentary Secretary (Ministry of Community Development and Sports) Yu-Foo Yee Shoon come up with a fresh campaign, complete with posters and media images like the Stop At Two campaign in the 1960s?

Many people frown on the latter. Mr Basskaran Nair, managing director of public relations firm Gavin Anderson, advocates stoical silence rather than the ""old gramophone record treatment'' for today's crowd. The former government propagandist who used to handle major media campaigns such as Stop At Two, Courtesy and Productivity, explains: "You are mentally reversing a major policy.

"There is a lot of residual anger and frustration from the young adults today whose parents had to be sterilised and who could have had a sister or brother if only it was allowed.''

In the 1960s and 1970s, when few heeded the government's call to Stop At Two, it came up with a slew of disincentives such as no-maternity leave for the third child and later, no priority for Primary One registration for the third and subsequent child unless one parent underwent sterilisation.

Because education is such a high priority here, this curbed the desire for big families effectively and many women ligated, aborted or refused to bear more children.

According to gynaecologist Paul Tan, who recalls doing a record number of sterilisations in the 1970s, one sad consequence is that the generation who grew up among Stop At Two posters is lost to today's Baby Bonus procreation drive, which is aimed at them.

"They have been brainwashed for years and can no longer count or see beyond two. They still remember the embarrassment of mothers who had three or more. It may take another generation to overcome this,'' he notes.

Hence, Mr Nair and other mothers feel that any government speeches or directives that ""have got to do with bedroom productivity or other people's bodies'' should tread very carefully from now.

"They have to be very subtle or people will switch off straight away,'' he warns. "It is a whole new ball game of communication today. People can choose to hear you or not hear you.''

The almost mute way the Scandinavians go about it, women agree, might be the wisest approach.

Although the incentives given are expressly pro-natal, they are disguised within the framework of social insurance or labour-market policies so the more delicate issues need not be broached by the government.

Mr Eddie Teo, Permanent Secretary to the Prime Minister's Office, feels the discussion here can afford to be more uninhibited because Singaporeans are generally "less squeamish'' about the fertility issue.

But maybe that is changing too.

At an Aware public forum on population matters in May, its president Dana Lam recalls that the question "What will make us start a family?'' was posted. The short and sharp answer from the floor was: "Get off our backs.''

On the ground, Dr Tan notes that there seems to be a latent cynicism after the two-child policy switched to Have Three Or More If You Can Afford It and now into today's all-embracing Baby Bonus for everyone.

People are confused. Which is which? Will incentives become disincentives if some demographer revises his estimate for the optimal population here -- yet again?

To a large extent, population watchers say the government's vacillating -- sometimes contradictory -- population-control policies have contributed to the current stalemate.

Whenever the government has meddled in social engineering based on demographic projections, they say, human errors have inevitably been made.

Perhaps, family counsellor Anthony Yeo says, it is time the government should ""seriously consider restraining itself from further social engineering and messing up people's lives''.

All sentiments considered, many people judge that it is best if the government's hand is not seen at all in this new baby quest. Instead, Mr Nair says it should consider sponsoring organisations such as the Rotary Club or country clubs, to organise ""non-threatening'' activities like couple re- treats.

Another way, he suggests, is to arrange behind the scenes for incentives such as Banyan Tree Resort discounts for married couples to go to exotic locations to make babies.

But, after putting in place a few sensitive subsidies, the appropriate emotional drivers and a child-friendly infrastructure, the government should then switch off the lights, turn on the piped music, and make a quiet exit so that people can be left alone to do that thing they do.