Vietnam Scraps Two-Child Limit as Birth Rate Declines
The country banned couples from having more than two children in 1988, but a family's size is now a decision for each individual couple, Vietnam News Agency said.
The country has experienced historically low birth rates in the last three years. The total fertility rate dropped to 1.91 children per woman in 2024, below replacement level, the ministry of health said this year.
Birth rates have fallen from 2.11 children per woman in 2021, to 2.01 in 2022 and 1.96 in 2023.
This trend is most pronounced in urbanized, economically developed regions, especially in big cities such as Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City as the cost of living rises.
Tran Minh Huong, a 22-year-old office worker, told AFP that the government regulation mattered little to her as she had no plans to have children.
"Even though I am an Asian, with social norms that say women need to get married and have kids, it's too costly to raise a child."
Deputy Health Minister Nguyen Thi Lien Huong, speaking at a conference earlier this year, warned it was increasingly difficult to encourage families to have more children, despite policy adjustments and public campaigns.
She emphasized that the declining birth rate poses challenges to long-term socio-economic development, including an aging population and workforce shortages.
She urged society to shift its mindset from focusing solely on family planning to a broader perspective of population and development.
Vietnam is also grappling with sex imbalances due to a historic preference for boys. On Tuesday the ministry of health proposed tripling the current fine to $3,800 "to curb fetal gender selection", according to state media.
It is forbidden to inform parents of the sex of their baby before birth in Vietnam, as well as to perform an abortion for sex-selection reasons, with penalties imposed on clinics who break the law.
The sex ratio at birth, though improved, remains skewed at 112 boys for every 100 girls.
Hoang Thi Oanh, 45, has three children but received fewer benefits after the birth of her youngest, due to the two-child policy.
"It's good that at last the authorities removed this ban," she said, but added that "raising more than two kids nowadays is too hard and costly."
"Only brave couples and those better-off would do so. I think the authorities will even have to give bonuses to encourage people to have more than two children."
Vietnam's neighbor China ended its own strict "one-child policy", imposed in the 1980s due to fears of overpopulation, in 2016 and in 2021 permitted couples to have three children.
But as in many countries, the soaring cost of living has proved a drag on birth rates and the moves have failed to reverse China's demographic decline -- its population fell for the third year in a row in 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
6 minutes ago
- Arab News
Maldives president receives Saudi fund chief
MALDIVES: Saudi Fund for Development CEO Sultan Al-Marshad was received by President of the Maldives Mohamed Muizzu in the Maldives. Al-Marshad congratulated the president on the 60th anniversary of his country's independence, the Saudi fund wrote in a post on X. The meeting highlighted the Saudi fund's 'development efforts that span nearly 47 years and explored ways to enhance development cooperation between both sides.'
Arab News
36 minutes ago
- Arab News
‘Humanitarian city' and ‘voluntary migration' are inhumane and involuntary
The Oxford Dictionary defines 'euphemism' as 'a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.' Wars and conflicts that cause unbearable suffering have also become fertile ground for irritating euphemisms. After all, individuals or groups involved in inflicting pain and misery on others are trying to hide their sense of shame, embarrassment, guilt, or accountability by using 'creative' and 'imaginative' euphemisms in order to deflect from their responsibility for their ill-doings. For example, one of the most used, though scorned, euphemisms from recent military history is 'collateral damage,' a term first used during the Vietnam War. In reality, this refers to death, injury, or damage to property inflicted on noncombatants — sometimes unintended, but very often recklessly — during military operations. Two more examples are 'extraordinary rendition' and 'friendly fire.' The first refers to seizing terror suspects and whisking them away to remote places in order to use illegal interrogation techniques, including torture; while the second refers to being shot accidentally by your own side — and there is nothing friendly about that. New wars bring with them new euphemisms or the dusting off of old ones, and in recent months Israel has increasingly been using two that are infuriating, but worse, pose a danger that if translated into reality are most likely to result in the committing of further war crimes. Let us start with the increasing use of 'voluntary migration' regarding the people of Gaza. Nothing is voluntary in what is being suggested by Israeli officials. Cabinet ministers began floating this idea just weeks after the Hamas attack of Oct. 7. The ultra-nationalist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who heads one of the religious ultra-nationalist parties in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition, and happens also to be a prominent settler in the occupied West Bank, declared in November 2023: 'I welcome the initiative of the voluntary emigration of Gaza Arabs to countries around the world, as the right humanitarian solution for the residents of Gaza.' As the war continued, Netanyahu joined the chorus of supporters and endorsed this despicable idea, encouraged by the US president's suggestion to push the entire Gaza population out of the enclave, while calling it 'a remarkable idea,' and one that 'should be really pursued.' To translate this idea into a practical plan, Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz announced the establishment of a new directorate in the Defense Ministry tasked with enabling Palestinians to 'voluntarily' leave the Gaza Strip. The use of the world 'voluntary' is deliberately misleading because those who are plotting the operation are well aware that Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits 'individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country, occupied or not.' Gaza's more than 2 million people were living in the world's biggest open-air prison even before the war broke out. Yossi Mekelberg The only exception is for the purpose of ensuring the security of the people displaced, and even the current Israeli government would find it impossible to convincingly advocate that this is their intention. Instead, experts in international law suggest that the constant displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and attempts to move them altogether out of the enclave are in breach of international law, and for the rest of us represent a cruel and immoral act of immense proportions, with serious political implications across the region. Those who toy with 'voluntary migration' know that they abuse the term voluntary, as it suggests doing something of one's own free will. Gaza's more than 2 million people were living in the world's biggest open-air prison even before the war broke out, and since then have been experiencing a living hell. Most have already been forcefully displaced several times, suffering from extreme shortages of food, water, medical help, shelter, and other basic needs. They are also traumatized by what they have experienced and witnessed in nearly two years of a war that hardly distinguishes between combatants and noncombatants, while every day they live in the constant fear that this might be the last for themselves and their loved ones. And despite that, most do not want to leave what is their home, even if it is a devastated one. Who could blame them if in the face of this cruel reality, and with no end in sight, they did wish to leave? But fleeing from the horrors of a death trap hardly constitutes voluntary migration. If this situation does not scare them enough to make them run for the border, the Israeli government has come up with the even more sinister idea of building a 'humanitarian city' on the ruins of Rafah. One wonders what sick brains have been brewing this evil plan to cram at least 600,000 souls into a new encampment on the border with Egypt, in a location that is already one of the most densely populated territories in the world. Audaciously, Israel's defense minister made no attempt to hide the true intention of this huge camp, openly declaring that those who move there will be free to leave, but only to go to another country — once again this doublespeak of 'free will' and 'completely voluntarily.' For the rest of us, this is a plan to transfer as many Palestinians as possible out of Gaza. The international community must not fall into the trap of these euphemisms, and must call out these horrific ideas for what they are — cruel and inhumane, and aimed at pushing out of Gaza as many as Palestinians as possible, and leaving the place under Israeli control, along with the idea being floated of building settlements there for Israelis. Those who supported Israel, and rightly so, after Oct. 7, should be brave and use what leverage they have to remove from the agenda any forced displacement or the building of what one former Israeli prime minister has called a concentration camp. The anger directed at Hamas for the hostages still held in captivity must not continue to be directed at innocent civilians as a justification for committing atrocities, and Israeli society must wake up and acknowledge this. After all, it is being done in their name. A good start would be to call a spade a spade, and call out 'voluntary migration' for what it is: an attempt to force the residents of Gaza out of their homes and push them into an inhumane camp and not a so-called 'humanitarian city.'
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Trump says Japan will invest $550 billion in US at his direction. It may not be a sure thing
President Donald Trump is bragging that Japan has given him, as part of a new trade framework, $550 billion to invest in the United States. It's an astonishing figure but still subject to negotiation and perhaps not the sure thing he's portraying. 'Japan is putting up $550 billion in order to lower their tariffs a little bit,' Trump said Thursday. 'They put up, as you could call it, seed money. Let's call it seed money.' He said 90 percent of any profits from the money invested would go to the US, even if Japan had put up the funds. 'It's not a loan or anything, it's a signing bonus,' the Republican president said on the trade framework that lowered his threatened tariff from 25 percent to 15 percent, including on autos. A White House official said the terms are being negotiated and nothing has been formalized in writing. The official, who insisted on anonymity to detail the terms of the talks, suggested the goal was for the $550 billion fund to make investments at Trump's direction. The sum is significant: It would represent more than 10 percent of Japan's entire gross domestic product. The Japan External Trade Organization estimates that direct investment into the US economy topped $780 billion in 2023. It is unclear the degree to which the $550 billion could represent new investment or flow into existing investment plans. What the trade framework announced Tuesday has achieved is a major talking point for the Trump administration. The president has claimed to have brought trillions of dollars in new investment into the US, though the impact of those commitments have yet to appear in the economic data for jobs, construction spending, or manufacturing output. The framework also enabled Trump to say other countries are agreeing to have their goods taxed, even if some of the cost of those taxes are ultimately passed along to US consumers. On the $550 billion, Japan's Cabinet Office said it involves the credit facility of state-affiliated financial institutions such as Japan Bank for International Cooperation. Further details would be decided based on the progress of the investment deals. Japanese trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa, upon returning to Japan, did not discuss the terms of the $550 billion investment. Akazawa said he believes a written joint statement is necessary, at least on working levels, to avoid differences. He is not thinking about a legally binding trade pact. The US apparently released its version of the deal while Japanese officials were on their return flight home. 'If we find differences of understanding, we may have to point them out and say that's not what we discussed,' Akazawa said. The US administration said the fund would be invested in critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, computer chips, and shipbuilding, among other industries. It has said Japan will also buy 100 airplanes from Boeing and rice from US farmers as part of the framework, which Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said would be evaluated every three months. 'And if the president is unhappy, then they will boomerang back to the 25 percent tariff rates, both on cars and the rest of their products. And I can tell you that I think at 25, especially in cars, the Japanese economy doesn't work,' Bessent told Fox News' 'The Ingraham Angle.' Akazawa denied that Bessent's quarterly review was part of the negotiations. 'In my past eight trips to the United States, during which I held talks with the president and the ministers,' Akazawa said, 'I have no recollection of discussing how we ensure the implementation of the latest agreement between Japan and the United States.' He said it would cause major disruptions to the economy and administrative processes if the rates first rise to 25 percent, as scheduled on August 1, and then drop to 15 percent. 'We definitely want to avoid that, and I believe that is the understanding shared by the US side,' he said. On buying US rice, Japanese officials have said they have no plans to raise the current 770,000-ton minimum access cap to import more from America. Agricultural Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said Japan will decide whether to increase US rice imports and that Japan is not committed to a fixed quota. Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, has suggested that the Japanese agreement is putting pressure on other countries, such as South Korea, to strike deals with the US. Trump, who is traveling in Scotland, plans to meet on Sunday with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to discuss trade. 'Whatever Donald Trump wants to build, the Japanese will finance it for him,' Lutnick said Thursday on CNBC. 'Pretty amazing.'
