A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore

Mdm Speaker, let me first speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Singapore's population policy should not only meet our development needs, but also promote social harmony. We must maintain Singapore's vibrancy and build a quality home that all Singaporeans share.

Recently, we have been discussing how large a population Singapore will have in the future. The reality is that Singapore does not have enough people and has a low fertility rate and an ageing population. By 2030, seniors aged 65 and above will reach 900,000 and those who need care may reach 117,000. This is a serious challenge we are facing.

To ensure a Singaporean core, we must first raise our citizens' fertility rate. In this regard, we must have strong determination. We have talked about this enough during the last several days. Now, I would like to focus on childcare and eldercare.

Many families rely on maids to look after their children. It would be most helpful if the Government could reduce or waive the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy. At the same time, employers should adopt more pro-family measures. When a person's family is harmonious, his productivity will also increase. As the saying goes, "a harmonious family can lead to the success of everything".

Besides maids, many couples also hope their parents, that is, the grandparents, could help look after the children. If the elderly can help look after

Page: 17

our next generation, our family and social cohesiveness would be strong. The elderly can play with their grandchildren and the latter can receive more love from them. Youngsters will be able to feel more warmth from the family. Grandparents are more experienced and caring; therefore, couples will be more comfortable with leaving their children with them. Hence, the Government can subsidise the grandparents who help look after the grandchildren with a childcare grant. This is a form of recognition of their contributions and will be seen as pro-family.

The elderly have laid the foundation for today's Singapore. Their contribution should not be forgotten. When drinking, we should remember where the water is from. We must take good care of them so that they can enjoy their senior years.

Looking after the elderly means they can age gracefully. Quite often, we hear people say that they are not afraid of death but sickness instead. This shows how the elderly are worried about high medical expenses. I hope the Government can relieve the elderly of their worries and consider waiving GST for all medical expenses, regardless whether they are subsidised by the Government or not, and relax the criteria for using ElderShield.

Besides physical health, we should also look after the elders' mental health. Ageing-in-place is a very good proposal. There is a saying that nowhere is as good as one's home. If the elderly could age in place and continue to live in a familiar environment, they will have better mental health. We need to expand the scope of ageing-in-place and build more pro-senior facilities in the community.

By 2030, seniors aged 65 and above will reach 900,000. More caregivers will be needed to look after them. Hence, to import a certain number of foreign caregivers is necessary.

In conclusion, to keep Singapore vibrant and to stay true to the Singapore spirit, we must have enough Singaporeans. I hope the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package can encourage Singaporeans to have more children so that we can have the joy of three generations living together. At the same time, we can build a more gracious society.

(In English): The White Paper aims to build a vibrant population with a strong Singaporean Core. Its main goal is to provide Singaporeans with better lives, higher quality homes and wider career choices to pursue their dreams. It

Page: 18

is pro-Singaporean and pro-Singapore.

A Punggol resident, Tan Siang Meng, recently shared his sentiments with me. Singaporeans are our national resource. We should do all we can to encourage the birth rate, rather than vary the pace of immigration.

I want to discuss how we can focus on the organic growth of Singaporeans, what more we can do to support Singaporeans, to strengthen the Singaporean Core. The Government is here for Singaporeans, along with Singaporeans and always on their side.

We need to reassure them that housing, jobs and cost of living are taken care of, as we experience demographic challenges in 2030. We not only have to assure Singaporeans that the plans in the White Paper benefit Singaporeans, we must ensure that Singaporeans can feel the benefits and get the benefits of Singapore's progress in 2030, without doubt.

Housing, cost of living, job competitiveness and Singapore's low birth rate are issues close to my heart. During my maiden speech in this Parliament last year, I offered some suggestions on improving Singapore's low birth rate, in terms of HDB flat rebates and free infant care.

Therefore, I welcome the recent Government initiatives that address the issues I had highlighted.

We are on the right track in our population policies. Allow me to make three observations and suggestions to further strengthen our population policies.

Firstly, the Government should continue to create as many opportunities for every Singaporean to be successful in life. In 2030, I hope all Singaporeans will live out their own "Singapore dream", have great and good career options and excel in different pathways they wanted. To do so, I urge the Government to invest heavily in education. We must preserve our social mobility and allow every child to realise their potential to the fullest.

Our investments in education should address our demographic challenges. Our ageing population will require more healthcare services. From NPTD's Paper on Foreign Manpower Demand, the projected growth of foreign healthcare professionals and support care workforce is about 9,000 and 6,000 respectively. I believe that more should be done to encourage locals to join these sectors instead. I urge the three medical schools here to do more to attract

Page: 19

and nurture medical professionals amongst Singaporeans.

Most parents applaud the recent announcements on the enhanced child and infant care subsidies. Sharon, another Punggol resident I met, suggests that more cost subsidies should be given to early childhood teachers to upgrade themselves. This will increase the level of professionalism in this sector.

Besides affordability of childcare courses, parents continue to be concerned by the accessibility and quality of early childhood development programmes. Could the Implementation Committee on Enhancing Pre-school Education give us an update?

The rising cost of living continues to be one of the chief concerns among Singaporeans, particularly the lower income group who have seen their real income stagnate. With rising income inequality a global phenomenon, we must help our low-income Singaporeans upgrade, take on good jobs and earn better wages. We need to attract better foreign investments so as to secure good quality jobs, better-paid jobs for our Singaporeans. I am heartened by the Government's drive to create high-value jobs, with two-thirds of Singaporeans holding PMET jobs by 2030.

The rental costs for commercial and industrial properties also affect the rising costs of living among Singaporeans. I would urge the HDB and JTC to assume bigger and more active roles in controlling the rental for these properties. A good example is the role of the NEA and its active co-management of new hawker centres with non-profit organisations.

Thirdly, we must continue to build good affordable homes and implement pro-family housing policies. On good affordable homes, I welcome MND's move to delink the prices of new flats from the prices of resale flats. This will address many young couples' anxieties. May I also suggest that MND continues to price future new flats at not more than five times of the eligible applicants' annual income of this flat type.

We also can do more for three generations of families staying together. The new Multi-generation Priority Scheme allows parents and their married child to submit a joint application to purchase a studio apartment or 2-room flat together with another flat in the same project. I suggest that MND looks at making bigger sized flats, that is, 4-room and 5-room, a priority to larger families to encourage them to live together.

Page: 20

I am also encouraged by MND's land use plan to build more regional centres, so that people can work and have leisure near their home. As a Pasir Ris-Punggol Member of Parliament, I am pleased to note that Punggol will be developed further. The existing Punggol Town Centre will be expanded into Punggol Downtown with a Town Square and a Creative Cluster. I wish to ask about the Government's plans for the type of creative cluster businesses it intends to attract and the estimated timeline for the redevelopment.

I also wish to appeal to HDB to grant a few days' grace period without penalty for each month of instalment payment to flat owners. This will help to ease the financial strain and burden for those families whose income barely meets the household expenditure.

On pro-family housing policies, I think we can go a step further than the newly introduced Parenthood Priority Scheme. We can also explore a special housing grant for HDB couples for each child they have, subject to a minimum of two children. Young families also need the support of their immediate families, such as their parents and in-laws. We can do more for them.

When Punggol is fully developed, the housing units in Punggol will be tripled to 96,000 units. As Punggol becomes one of the largest HDB towns under the Punggol Downtown, I would like to request that LTA expedite the building of the Cross Island Line. This will facilitate better connectivity for the larger number of residents from Punggol to towns in the central and western region. I hope LTA can look into opening the line in stages within the next decade, with Changi, Pasir Ris and Punggol as the first stops.

While the population policy is of national concern, we must continue to adopt policies that are both pro-Singaporean and pro-Singapore. The organic growth of our Singapore Core must be the utmost priority.

Recently, I shared my experiences as a father with the parents at my Punggol Edusave presentation ceremony. To me, children fulfil the life of a couple. After a full day's work, I feel energised just by the sight of my children at home. They remind me of my purpose in life and what I am striving for.

The success of our population policies depends most importantly on the personal choices and efforts of our fellow Singaporeans. We can agree on some issues and will disagree on other issues. However, there are many parts to Singapore's future in 2030 which we must work and create together as a family,

Page: 21

as a community and as a nation.

With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion with the proposed amendment, and the assurance by the Government that it will do its utmost to create a better and quality life for Singaporeans, and to also help Singaporeans to increase productivity to bring a better life for our children and our next generation.

Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the Members here and also my residents in Pasir Ris-Punggol and all Singaporeans a Happy Lunar New Year.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak in this debate. When the White Paper was released, I had strong reservations. I wondered how Singapore can accommodate 6.9 million, when every day we are faced with crowds in places such as the housing estates, wet markets, shopping malls, MRT trains, buses and carparks? How can I feel that this is still my country if Singaporeans are at the brink of becoming the minority with 55% of the population being citizens in Singapore in 2030?

Singaporeans shared these reservations. The White Paper evoked a strong reaction from many Singaporeans. The media headlines were stark and set the tone for the vigorous debate that was to come. The Internet was abuzz with concerns and critical comments. In essence, the pushback from Singaporeans was mighty strong. Many spoke to me, emailed me and left comments on my Facebook page. Let me share some of the comments I have received.

First: "What is the purpose of a 6.9 million population? How fast can our infrastructure develop to meet with this increase in population? Are current citizens expected to pay more in terms of GST, transport fares, etc, in that case to let ourselves have less space in this country?"

Next one: "It's never too late to stop and think – are we for 'a healthy economy' or for 'a healthy people'? Most important, what is the healthy balance we ought to achieve between national economic progress and meaningful personal growth for each citizen?"

Page: 22

These comments are sensible, and I believe many Singaporeans share these sentiments as well.

When the Ministers took turns to explain the intent, that is, our first priority is to strengthen the Singaporean Core; that 6.9 million is NOT a target but a planning parameter; and that the infrastructure will be improved and built ahead of time, I felt more reassured. But still, I have some reservations and I will set them out here.

First on infrastructure: with current pain points still stubbornly persisting, it is frankly difficult for anyone to imagine the vision articulated in the White Paper or the Land Use Plan. How much more can we build before collapsing our island nation?

I appreciate that MND and MOT have released their respective master plans to improve services, prior to the release of the White Paper. However, I believe we should have first focused on resolving the current pain points quickly before considering the White Paper proposals. Can MND and MOT not continue to work at improving services until the current problems are resolved? When the problems are resolved, I believe that is also when Singaporeans can better imagine and have the confidence that we can accommodate the rise in population growth.

Hence, I am glad that the hon Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed an amendment which singled out and gave clarity to the need to prioritise efforts in resolving the current strains on our infrastructure.

The Government also needs to plan ahead and invest in infrastructure beyond just housing and transport. This should include the adequacy supply of water, sustainability of energy use and effective waste management! Even at our present population size, are these sufficient and sustainable over the long term?

Take waste management as an example. We have limited land. The land will grow but to house people and not waste. People, however, will continue to incur and produce waste on a daily basis. So, how are we going to manage that and how effective will the waste-to-energy incineration be in reducing the volume of waste produced in future by an expected larger population?

The next concern I have is about maintaining a Singaporean Core. A strong Singaporean Core is essential to having a stable and healthy Singapore. This is

Page: 23

also one of the stated aims in the White Paper. But are we doing enough to maintain and, in fact, strengthen the Singaporean core? There are a few points that I would like to make.

First, it is critical to raise our demoralising TFR. Encouraging a significant increase in TFR within a short span of time will be challenging, but we need to continue to push hard at it. Yes, low TFR is a phenomenon observed in many developed countries around the world, but there are also mature economies which have seen a rise in TFR because of good efforts put in by their governments.

Consider Australia. In 2007, Australia had a TFR of 1.9, which rose to about 1.93 in 2008 and has since stayed at that level. It is a positive example of a developed economy with a higher than average fertility rate. Some of Australia's birth rate pick-up came from what it has called "recuperation". This means that a significant number of women who had at an earlier stage, for example, at the age 25 years old, did not wish to give birth, and decided to do so only several years later.

The report suggests that it is the accessibility of part-time jobs, reduced financial risks associated with childbearing and lowered costs associated with exiting and re-entering the labour market that have enabled this "recuperation".

Australia's experience gives hope that Singapore too can, in time, increase our TFR. But we have to seriously address and overcome the barriers that deter Singaporean couples from starting families.

Top of the list of factors that was explored is the affordability of supporting a child. This is based on studies both in Australia and locally. For example, a year 2000 Australian study pointed out that the financial and psychosocial costs of having children can be difficult to decipher, and that negative "unknowns" themselves encourage individuals to err on the side of caution and thus discourage them from having children. Locally, a 2012 study report by NTU Assistant Professor Shirley Hsiao also found that the top concern affecting childbearing decisions was the high and rising cost of living in Singapore, with 96 out of 165 respondents expressing this concern in the study.

These studies make clear that the costs of raising a child is a major consideration and the Government needs to do more to help minimise the uncertainties surrounding the raising of a child. In addition, an interesting observation made in the local study was that incentives, such as the Baby Bonus,

Page: 24

were no longer seen as an incentive, but as a form of compensation or reimbursement. Therefore, it is clear that while the schemes that have been offered by the Government have good intention, but it is not enough.

Therefore, the Government must continue to monitor the effectiveness of its parenthood schemes and review the package of measures from time to time to address the concerns of Singaporean parents and assure them that the Government will help with the cost of raising their children.

The slew of schemes announced in the recent Marriage and Parenthood Package was comprehensive and certainly a step in the right direction. However, it does not go far enough to address lingering concerns, such as the availability of childcare and the cost of hiring a foreign domestic helper. We must continue to do more in this area.

I would also like to boldly propose the following measures for the Government's consideration.

First, I think this is something that we have all been talking about – childcare. Ramp up, incubate and facilitate the setting up of more childcare centres closer to the heartland so that parents need not worry about accessibility and availability.

Second, transport. Make public transport family-friendly in addition to simply creating capacity, for instance, by providing family-friendly carriages on MRT trains for families travelling together with young children or elderly parents. There are only so many cars that the roads can handle and, therefore, at some point, Singaporeans will have to rely on public transport. And we can help by making public transport more family-friendly.

Third, women workers. Introduce more measures to protect working mothers and mothers-to-be from discrimination at work. MOM reported that an average of 70% of unfair dismissal cases involving women workers that MOM has received, involved pregnant women. Hence, we must work to ensure a fair working environment in Singapore so that women who wish to start families can do so, without fear of losing their career. It does not have to be a situation whereby you "gain one baby, and lose one career". It should not be a zero sum game.

Next, we can strengthen our Singaporean Core by drawing from a pool of non-Singaporeans who are strongly affiliated with Singaporeans. I refer to the

Page: 25

foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens. I had raised this and argued for them in the debate on the Immigration (Amendment) Act in August last year.

We should not neglect the contributions of a foreign spouse, especially a woman, married to a Singaporean and who has raised Singaporean children. She is not going anywhere and neither will her Singaporean spouse and children forsake her. We need to understand that marriage is a lifelong commitment. It concerns people's lives. These are Singaporeans who have decided to build a future with foreign partners. We should not make it any more difficult for such couples who have Singaporean children especially. In helping these foreign spouses, we are not just helping the individuals themselves, but really what we are doing is to strengthen Singaporean families and, therefore, nourishing our Singaporean Core.

When we talk about the Singaporean Core, it is also about preserving our Singaporean identity. Being a Singaporean, a citizen should be beyond just holding a pink IC. There has to be a sense of togetherness and shared destiny. It is natural that Singaporeans worry if some of these new immigrants are opportunistic and will exploit us for their own gains. It is natural that Singaporeans want to know: will they stay and fight with us if a war breaks out tomorrow? Can they speak our language? And will they sing our National Anthem with the same feeling that we have?

Clearly, we cannot have zero immigration. However, we need to do more and try harder in our efforts to integrate new immigrants faster and better. And to prevent Singaporeans from becoming a minority in our own country, I hope the Government will consider setting a baseline percentage of Singaporeans that cannot be breached. That will ensure that foreigners will never be admitted into Singapore beyond an acceptable level and that Singaporeans can be better safeguarded.

Finally, I would like to touch on Buy-in from Young Singaporeans. We could do more to communicate the White Paper proposals better. The Population White Paper is one of the most important issues considered in this Parliament. This debate concerns what is the soul of Singapore, and what it means to be a Singaporean and to build a Singaporean core. The White Paper that we debate this week will set the path for the next two decades and, for someone of my generation or younger, there is a lot at stake.

I believe that the Government has good intentions. This is evidently an unpopular task; some may question if this is fool's courage; some have even

Page: 26

described it as "political suicide" for the ruling party. I would like to think that any political party in a democracy will not shoot itself in the foot; the Government would not have introduced this White Paper unless it believes that this is the best proposal, or at least the least bad for Singaporeans and for the future. However, the Government has to do much more to convince Singaporeans that the White Paper proposals are necessary and correct.

Mdm Speaker, I am turning 30 years old this year. In all my years, Singapore has enjoyed high GDP growth of about 5% to 8% every year, except during the short periods when Singapore went into recession. Those of my generation Y would find it difficult to appreciate the perils of prolonged low growth or no growth, especially not when many of us are preoccupied with persistent pressures on a daily basis.

Many of us jostle for space on the roads, in our buses and on MRT trains. Many feel keenly and intimately the competition from foreigners; many are struggling to even catch a breather in the career rat-race. The goals we used to have are increasingly unattainable as the goal posts seem to have been shifted again and again. Moreover, to young people, beyond economic growth and good jobs, we have other equally, if not more, important but perhaps less tangible goals, for instance, happiness, meaningful life, fair opportunities and the space to lead the life we want to have.

Each generation has its own needs, demands and character, and we need to recognise that. My generation is one which will not simply accept that the Government knows best. We need to be shown the facts and figures, and be convinced that the course of action is, indeed, the right one.

For instance, in the case of the White Paper, what were the different scenarios that were considered? How are the measures implemented in other countries with similar challenges not applicable or not relevant in our context? Are there specific data or cases that can be explained so that we would know the trade-offs and, therefore, make an informed decision? For example, how will life change if we are having a GDP growth of 3% or even at 0%? How much higher will taxes have to be if we do not grow the population size?

From now to 2030, young Singaporeans will be going through the prime of our lives, building our careers and raising our own families. Our generation will be profoundly affected by the White Paper proposals. Therefore, if the Government firmly believes in what it has set out in the White Paper, it will have to explain more and illustrate more, to persuade a generation brought up to

Page: 27

think critically, speak out without fear, fight for our rights, and do what we believe is the right thing. Mdm Speaker, just a few words in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Population is an important issue that we must pay attention to. This decision will bring about long-term implications. By 2030, I will be 47 years old and I should still be working. If I am lucky, I will probably have children and will be bringing them up. Therefore, today's decision will affect my generation, as well as the future of our children. For now, many of my peers are facing mounting pressure as there seems to be endless rounds of obstacles. There is no right or wrong about the definition of a bright future. And Singaporeans should decide for ourselves and be responsible for it.

Several days ago on 5 February, a 17-year-old student Zhang Jiayu wrote in to Lianhe Zaobao to express her views. The article titled "What the post-1990ers think of the White Paper" was not only well-written but expressed the voices of many young Singaporeans. I hereby quote from her, "If my future children are to live in such a crowded environment, and face endless competition while living under financial strains, I'd rather not have children than to let them suffer. I believe many who are born in the 1980s and 1990s think the same way."

Of course, economy, work and money are important, but happiness, having a meaningful life and personal space are equally important.

I understand that the responsibility of this Government is onerous. If we make a wrong move, we may lose the whole game. This is perhaps why the Government would rather be blamed by the people now for making an unpopular decision than risk being blamed by the people as the one responsible for bringing about the crisis later on.

However, in life, there are also times when those on the losing end are happy while those on the winning end are sad. Therefore, I urge the Government to listen to the voices of young Singaporeans. If the Government believes that the White Paper is the correct solution, then I hope the Government will try its best to convince Singaporeans. Our future should lie in our hands. I hereby make a bold statement to the Government that, sometimes, if the Government can take a step backwards, we will all see the fuller picture and have that breathing space.

Page: 28

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the end of the White Paper debate cannot be the last word on the matter. It should be an opportunity to continue an engagement process to explain, clarify, argue, adjust and then solicit buy-in and build consensus amongst the people.

This White Paper is for Singaporeans and, so, it is only right that Singaporeans are brought on-board to support the strategies in the paper. Precisely because this concerns all of us, that is why Singaporeans' support is so critical.

There is no need to rush an 18-year destiny in just one week. Hence, Mdm Speaker, as hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed and set out the amendment to the Motion and, therefore provided clarity to the intent of the Motion, I support the amended Motion standing in the name of the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Otherwise, I would boldly ask that the paper be deferred so that there is more time for collective discussion, more detailed explanation and exploration of more options.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. In response to the White Paper, I would like to raise two broad areas of concern.

Page: 29

My first concern touches on how serious we are about raising our citizen Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and making sure we will have a strong and not diminishing Singaporean core in the long term.

The White Paper acknowledges that many East Asian societies and Western European countries have fertility rates below replacement levels, but it fails to present or consider examples of other countries that have been successful in gradually reversing their declining TFR. These include Norway, Sweden, France, Iceland, Ireland and the UK.

Some of these more successful countries have relied, to some extent, on immigrant births to reverse declining TFR, but research also shows that as these nations become more developed, better systems are put in place to help families take care of children, such as extended paternity care and more equitable working environments.

The reversal of declining TFR, most notably in the Nordic countries, is due largely to the adoption of women-friendly and family-friendly social policies and labour market practices. Women enjoy relatively unhindered access to the labour market, and are able to easily withdraw from and return to it after taking parental leave. In Singapore, however, the women's workforce participation rates decline and do not recover from age 30 onwards. This indicates that many who leave the workforce do not return.

In Norway, on the other hand, women benefit from extended paid maternity leave of 46 weeks and their jobs are protected by law. Both partners, mother and father, are actively involved in child-rearing, with men being offered a minimum of 10 weeks paid paternity leave. There is access to high quality, heavily subsidised childcare and a guaranteed place for every child. Companies are obligated to offer benefits to pregnant women and new mothers. For instance, expectant mothers get free medical check-ups and breastfeeding moms are allowed to leave early from work.

In the Singapore context, these would be considered very bold measures. However, like several Members in this House have stated, we need to implement bold measures if we expect a paradigm change. If this projection of 6.9 million people by 2030 is really "a worst-case scenario" to help Government plan for our long-term infrastructural needs, then, by the same argument, should we not explore all means and ways to raise the TFR of our resident population under worst-case scenario circumstances?

Page: 30

Studies have shown that social policies that help women to reconcile work and family life have a positive effect on fertility. If we are serious about raising TFR, we need to support women who wish to continue working and making a living after childbirth, and give them the assurance that having more children will not have a negative impact on their and their children's quality of life. We should do more to make gender equality a core value in all our policies in order to support shared parenthood. We need legislation to eliminate workplace discrimination against mothers and pregnant women, and provide greater job security for them. Like Ms Mary Liew, I would like to ask that Government also consider legislating for companies to provide options for flexi-work arrangements for women after childbirth, as well as advocate and incentivise them to support the needs of new mothers in the workplace. And, finally, we must ensure that all our children, no matter their economic background, have good and easy access to high quality and affordable pre-school education and childcare.

My second and more pressing concern relates to Singaporeans' capacity to embrace a much bigger foreign population into our midst.

Singapore has a high proportion of PRs and foreigners who live and work alongside our citizens every day. The current ratio is about 38% of the total population. And by 2020, this will climb to about 40%. And by 2030, the number projected will be close to 45%. That is almost half! Is it any surprise then that there is so much anxiety and insecurity amongst Singaporeans over who will constitute this Singaporean Core in 2030?

Reading MND's Land Use Plan paper and after listening to Minister Khaw's reassurances, one could argue that it is reasonable to trust the planners on the carrying capacity of our island. What is less clear, however, are our psychological, social and cultural capacities to absorb, accept, if not embrace, this continued flow of newcomers into our midst, and to live well and harmoniously together with them.

First, our psychological deficit. Madam, I am not sure if Singaporeans are psychologically ready to accept a lot more immigrants. I believe we are not a xenophobic bunch. We come from immigrant forefathers and we have lived and grown together as a multi-cultural society over many decades. However, in the past year alone, there has been an outpouring of anger both online and in the mainstream press over various incidents involving foreigners.

Page: 31

It is out of our character, but I believe some of this angst stems from our worry over limited national resources. For instance, the prospect of more and more affluent foreigners snapping up private homes in the property market fuels fears that Singaporeans will soon be priced out of their dream homes.

Sure, the 6.9 million figure is only a planning parameter but, psychologically, it is still a hard pill to swallow because Government has yet to convince citizens on how it intends to effectively deal with the serious infrastructural gaps and address the more fundamental questions related to the rising costs of housing and healthcare and the challenges of retirement faced by Singaporeans today. This has led to a growing sense of insecurity about our future, a break in trust between Government and the people, and a lack of confidence that what we work for counts for something. I would, therefore, like to echo Mr Inderjit Singh's call for Government to focus first on solving the problems created by past policies of rapid economic and population growth, and on improving the lives of Singaporeans.

Singaporeans need to feel confident and secure that, as citizens, we have equal opportunities to achieve our aspirations regardless of race, language or religion.

We can start by looking at increasing social spending as a percentage of GDP to benefit and help a larger proportion of Singaporeans, and not just those at the very bottom-rung. Social spending in Singapore has decreased significantly from about 25% of GDP in the 1980s to only about 16% of GDP by 2011, even less than in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. In this respect, I agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng that Government should review its bias against welfarism.

We need to also assure citizens that they are not discriminated against in their own country. We can do this by ensuring that Singaporeans are not discriminated in favour of foreigners when it comes to employment, especially with the rise of more Singaporeans in PMET jobs. We can also make it easier for overseas-born Singaporeans to get their citizenship when they turn 21. I know of Singapore children, born overseas to Singaporean parents, who face an endless line of bureaucratic hoops and hurdles just to prove their right to citizenship. In the meantime, they are upset that there are foreigners who are wooed and courted, and then fast-tracked through the system to getting their citizenship.

Page: 32

We should eliminate discrimination against our own citizens in our social policies. Childcare benefits, for instance, should be extended equally to all parents, male or female, unwed or married, with biological or adopted children. A Singaporean child, no matter the family situation or circumstances of their birth, should be taken care of and given the best possible start in life. In fact, even more so if the parent is single and struggling to raise the child on his or her own.

In our minds, there should be no first and second-class citizens amongst Singaporeans. If, as citizens, we do not feel secure that Singapore is our best home, if we are not confident that we can raise a family, grow old and retire comfortably here, then we would not have it in our hearts and our minds to be open and accepting of our foreign friends.

Second, our social deficit. Madam, in a recent letter to TODAY, someone warned that Singapore was in danger of developing into three broad enclaves: one, foreign workers living in dormitories; two, Singaporean heartlanders; and three, wealthy foreigners living in the central region. This does not sound like the Singapore we love and remember, where friends and neighbours of various ethnic, cultural and economic backgrounds, would mix and mingle despite our language differences. This sounds more like a Singapore that is at risk of racial and class divisions. The rapid PR and foreign population growth in the last few years has caused some of these fractures and reduced our empathy for difference.

I like what Mr Arthur Fong said in his speech – we need to grow a "strong heart", or better yet, a "big heart". If we do not start to build the social capacity to accept difference and diversity in our society now, we will lack the ability to embrace people who are different from us in the future.

We will remain in social deficit if we tolerate or close a blind eye to the exploitation of low-wage foreign workers, which downgrade the industries that rely on their labour. Singaporeans then do not want to take up certain jobs because they are seen as lower status jobs done only by foreigners. This creates a further dependency on foreign workers. The recent decision to grant our Foreign Domestic Workers a mandatory day off was a step in the right direction, but more can be done to protect the other labour rights of these workers. Policies and practices that place a lower value on the lives and well-being of certain human beings also lead to Singaporeans to devalue the lives of other Singaporeans.

Page: 33

We will remain in social deficit if biased preference is given to certain immigrants from certain countries or sectors. We need a fair and transparent system of immigration so that a diversified pool of immigrants can become PRs, and eventually citizens, contributing to all sectors of society. In this way, Singapore is not just seen as a stepping-stone to other shores.

Some resentment against foreigners is a result of bringing in large numbers of immigrants who may share similar ethnic backgrounds as us, but do not share similar cultural backgrounds, norms and values. We should enable the development of Singapore as a multi-cultural society where people are not simply pigeon-holed into one of the four ethnic categories, but included as part of a diverse, cosmopolitan society. In this regard, perhaps it is timely to review our ethnic quota policies and how we implement them.

We can also do more to educate our young at school by exposing our children, from an early age, to world cultures and world histories, so that they start to develop a healthy respect, empathy and understanding of those from foreign lands and cultures.

Finally, our cultural deficit. Madam, the White Paper talks about providing a high quality of life, and celebrating and safeguarding our heritage, but adds this qualifier: "wherever it is practical to do so". It wants Singapore to be a "liveable, lively and well-loved" city, but does not earmark any new spaces for heritage, culture and the arts. In fact, in MND's entire 68-page paper on Land Use, "the arts" is only mentioned in one brief paragraph, and not much is said about preserving spaces for historical, cultural or sentimental value to Singaporeans. It is a glaring omission, and I refer to this lack of consideration as our "cultural deficit".

Culture, of which the Arts are its deepest form of expression, reflects who we are, how we see the world and how the world sees us. The Arts also entertain us, educate us, revive us and provide the much needed leisure outlet to unwind and relax. Our cultural wealth and heritage are built on history, tradition and memories. It roots us and gives us the tenacity to face change. It provides us with the necessary cultural depth to strengthen our Singapore identity. On this aspect, I have two points.

First, a sense of shared history and a strong sense of belonging amongst Singaporeans make it easier for new citizens to actively connect with their new home. How do we develop empathy and mutual understanding of each other's worldviews and differences if we do not continue to develop cultural spaces like

Page: 34

museums and art venues where stories, traditions and memories can be shared? Several Members have questioned the effectiveness of some of our integration initiatives. Mr Seng Han Tong felt that the citizenship ceremonies, grassroots events and audio-visual presentations may not have been as impactful as they should be. Integration efforts should not be a one-way street. Singaporeans, too, need to build these cultural capacities. A vibrant arts scene can provide far more enriching ways of encountering and bridging differences, and celebrating diversity.

Secondly, public spaces to which Singaporeans have made long-lasting attachments help us develop a keen sense of home. It is an emotional attachment. There is no "practical" reason to safeguard it except to safeguard the hearts of our citizens and their sentimental connection to this island. Valuable historical resources are in danger of being lost if a concerted effort is not made to assess them in detail, prior to any land use decisions. These decisions cannot be made as and when an infrastructural need arises.

Madam, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I would like to recall MND's response to the Bukit Brown issue at last year's Committee of Supply debate. The Minister of State recognised that hard choices on how our land is used need to be made. He recalled the late Mr Lim Kim San's words, "Do you want me to look after our dead grandparents or do you want me to look after your grandchildren?" It would be hugely ironic if, in order to make way for more people in 2030, most of whom will be new immigrants with no ancestral links to this land, we had to give up our own cultural and historical treasures and legacies. Worse still, if the 6.9 million figure is truly a stretched projection in a "worst case scenario", then we need to ask ourselves, are we willing to permanently sacrifice, say, parts of Bukit Brown, for instance, to build infrastructure based on a figure we may or may not achieve?

It is one thing to build a liveable city. The harder question is: how do we build a loveable one?

Mdm Speaker, to conclude, I would like to remind the House of the wisdom and foresight of S Rajaratnam in 1967. He had written an article for the Petir newsletter entitled, "Preparing for the Seventies". At that time, we were a society of transient immigrants, where many thought of Singapore, and I quote, "not as ‘our island' but as a treasure island in which one stayed so long as there was treasure available". He goes on to say, "To instill in them a deep concern for not just their personal future, but for the future of Singapore… This is partly

Page: 35

a psychological problem."

Rajaratnam recognised that issues of national identity and integration have to be resolved before we can resolve the other important problems of economics, housing and education. Why? Because whether citizens or foreigners, we are all human. We are not productive units or economic digits. Because immigration and integration present serious social challenges, not just engineering ones.

Just as we need to plan our physical infrastructure to accommodate a larger population, so will we need to develop our psychological, social and cultural capacities to accommodate the greater diversity and difference in our society. And these capacities, too, need to be built ahead of demand.

Madam, on the basis that more consultation and debate are needed on alternative growth models and targets which have an impact on our infrastructure planning, and given that we have yet to strengthen our psychological, social and cultural capacities to accept a higher immigrant population, I find it hard to endorse this White Paper. Madam, I oppose the Motion.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to take part in this important debate. Our declining fertility rate, coupled with an ageing population, political and economic anxieties and vulnerabilities, presents significant political, economic, social and cultural consequences. The angst, anger and anxiety on the ground and within the Government are palpable. A leap of faith is asked of this House and of Singaporeans.

This House will successfully carry this Motion. But that is probably the easiest part for the Government. Securing a strong buy-in from Singaporeans is far from being a foregone conclusion. The White Paper on Population should be the start of a renewed effort towards continued and deep engagement with all stakeholders. It should not be a document to end consultation and discussion. We should not be afraid to robustly revisit the assumptions and the parameters in the White Paper over the next 17 years and beyond.

I sincerely hope that the Government will take a nuanced and open-minded approach to the objections and concerns expressed in this House and not look at them along partisan lines. I can safely say that this House agrees with the imperatives of economic growth, immigration, integration and infrastructure development. We may differ on the methods but the end-points are largely similar.

I am all for a population and Singapore that is both sustainable and dynamic. I am also for a sustainable and principled immigration policy, one that truly puts Singaporeans at the centre of all considerations and policies. The population policy must serve Singaporeans, not Singaporeans serving the population policy.

Madam, I have deep reservations about the "operating system" behind the proposed roadmap. While the proposed amendments to the Motion do assuage some of my concerns, the White Paper is primarily an economic roadmap. And the themes of vulnerability, fear, crisis and doom are reiterated. It is not a

Page: 42

hopeful document, and the interventions by the front bench, in my mind, reinforced that. As such, I am unable to endorse the White Paper.

While we aspire to be a global city, a metropolis that is relevant, appealing to Singaporeans and the world alike, we cannot forget that we are, and need to be, a nation-state as well. To be more specific, we cannot forget that we are a city-state – there is no hinterland that is within our jurisdiction that you and I can retreat to if we do not like the bright lights of a global city. An American who does not like the global city of New York City can retreat to upstate New York or the Mid-West.

The White Paper is disappointing in that, to all intents and purposes, it presents us with only one option. That in order for us to have the requisite economic growth levels by 2020 and 2030, we need to have a certain requisite population, something in the region of 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030. The White Paper has, unwittingly, heightened the vulnerability and fear factor since it presents, depending on your vantage point, the best or worst options for Singapore. It reminds me of then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's T-I-N-A slogan: That "There is no alternative". How do we create a sustainable and dynamic population and Singapore if we take that as our starting point?

Let me deal with the three pillars of the White Paper. First, that "Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation". What happens in the privacy of the bedroom has significant national consequences. As such, I welcome the latest enhancements to the Marriage and Parenthood Package. I hope they work this time but I am not so optimistic. We have moved to the norm of one-child or two children family as a result of the strong anti-natalist policy in the 1970s and our dalliance with eugenics from the mid-1980s, which turbo-charged the natural contraceptive effect of education, wealth and more opportunities for women. As we continue to have more tertiary educated Singaporeans and new citizens on this island, I do not see how the TFR is going to go up significantly.

I remain puzzled that we did not act affirmatively early enough since our TFR dipped below the replacement level as early as in 1976-1977. Small was beautiful then; but, now, big is beautiful. More crucially, does our poor TFR reflect an innate and inchoate fear of the future? The White Paper does accentuate this fear.

The state can help with the costs of raising a family – that is the easy part. More difficult is the task of engendering a genuine pro-family culture and

Page: 43

environment. Money cannot get us there. It is about substance, not form. This requires a whole and radical mindset shift, and not more talk or money. We need to move more resolutely on this front, especially in our schools and workplaces. Stress levels are high and we should look at the concern that our children do not have much of a childhood, and that many parents run home schools after they finish work. Yes, our schools may be teaching less so that our children may learn more. But it seems like they are studying more and have even more homework. I see the self-esteem of young people increasingly being defined or deflated by their academic grade point averages (GPAs).

Mdm Speaker, not only must we encourage more marriages and procreation, a pro-family environment must require us to reduce the "leakages". Abortion, at about 12,000 annually over the last decade, is one major leakage. We have a very liberal abortion regime. Can we do more for pregnant women, especially those who are married, to keep the unborn child they do not want?

Another leakage, which has been much discussed, is that we must do even more to get the economically inactive Singaporeans into the workforce. Have we done enough or is it mere lip service?

How do we have Singaporeans at the core, the heart of the nation, if the complexion of our society will change significantly with Singaporeans, including new citizens, forming only 55% of the population? By 2020, we may have 3.5 million or 3.6 million citizen hearts beating but warm bodies alone do not make for a national soul. It is not a numbers game, of course, but just as the Government speaks of maintaining the racial composition, a disproportionate number of non-citizens and new citizens in a short span of time on this island will dramatically alter the Singaporean identity.

In essence, nation-building is about this national soul of ours. Do we impoverish it or do we sustain it with our population policy? The White Paper may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of a weakened nation not because of a poor economy but more likely because we continue to dilute what it means to be Singaporean.

Mdm Speaker, I am well aware that we are almost about to fall off the demographic cliff and, as such, we need to outsource our fertility. Immigration is, and will remain, an imperative, but how we go about it matters tremendously. We need to ask the "how" questions a lot more and manage the downstream effects and the lived realities that ordinary Singaporeans encounter on a daily

Page: 44

basis.

We will continue to need immigration – ranging from transient workers, permanent residents and citizens – but this immigration must ultimately be of benefit to Singaporeans. This relentless search for foreign talent has marginalised Singaporeans. I fear that a re-invigorated immigration policy will mean that more Singaporeans will be short-changed even more. As it is, a growing number of Singaporeans feel disenfranchised that we are second-class citizens in our homeland.

Mdm Speaker, let me give an example. In some taxpayer-funded institutions, foreigners are paid more than equally-qualified Singaporeans for doing the same job. This comes about because foreigners are given housing allowances and education allowances for their children below 21 years of age.

This was necessary perhaps two or three decades ago when these institutions were seeking to build their international reputations, the Singapore dollar was not as strong as it is today, and Singapore was probably regarded as a hardship assignment. But things are vastly different today. And, yet, we perpetuate this differential treatment. What signals are we sending to Singaporeans with this blatant discrimination?

On Monday this week, the Acting Minister for Manpower noted that SMRT's PRC drivers' total package includes transport and housing costs. However, at the other end of the spectrum, as I have just narrated, such allowances to foreigners are not seen as part of the total remuneration package for them when comparing Singaporeans to non-Singaporeans.

Recently, given the increases in rental and property prices, the foreigners in one taxpayer-funded institution were given higher housing allowances. However, no similar adjustments were made for Singaporeans who are also affected by the property price increases, never mind that some foreigners were also collecting rent on their homes in their home country.

Some years back, when employers' CPF contributions were no longer compulsory for some foreigners, some Singapore taxpayer-funded institutions decided to make direct payments to the foreigners in lieu of the employer's CPF contributions. The thinking was that the foreigner should be entitled to the benefit of the equivalent of the employer's CPF contribution even though there was no statutory requirement to do so. So, pay equalisation works in one direction only: what the Singaporean gets, the foreigner must also get. However,

Page: 45

what the foreigner gets, the Singaporean need not or cannot get.

We hear increasingly of discrimination at the workplaces: how foreigners prefer to employ their own kind; how Singaporeans get passed over because being local is not good enough, and is being held against you. I know of many Singaporeans who would like to come back home with their families but, professionally, they are better-off being away. This "foreigner-is-better" mentality is real, not apparent. As a foreign Caucasian academic once declared to an academic friend of mine, when explaining why a Caucasian was used in the cover-photo in a publicly funded local educational institution admission brochure, that foreign Caucasian academic said, "It makes us a world-class school".

Is it any surprise that our liberal immigration policy is also resisted by Singaporean PMETs since the operation in some of our taxpayer-funded institutions results in unfairness and injustice? What does it mean to be Singaporean in this case? It is a badge of dishonour in some of our taxpayer-funded institutions when the Singaporean nationality is seen as not being good enough.

To compound the palpable concerns in all quarters, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is not that every citizen gains from it – at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for a local job lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure not keeping up with the influx of immigrants. In short, the opportunity cost of a liberal immigration regime is perceived by the average Singaporean to be very high. The concern at all levels of the workforce is that local talents are being passed over, given the preference for "foreign talent". There is also a strong perception that Singaporeans are doing the "heavy lifting". So, the societal ambivalence, angst, and, increasingly, anger towards immigration is to be expected. Singaporeans do not ask for preferential treatment but just fair and equitable treatment, a level playing field.

In particular, Singaporeans regard National Service as a crucial marker of commitment and loyalty. But operationally ready National Servicemen are feeling that National Service is, indeed, a liability. Some employers prefer non-Singaporean male employees because there is no issue of their being away from work for operationally ready National Service. To these employers, let me say that we Singaporeans provide the security umbrella for your businesses and your comfortable and secure lives here. You ought to be ashamed of

Page: 46

yourselves, especially the Singaporean employers.

Mdm Speaker, like it or not, many Singaporeans are not so much concerned with transient immigration, as conventional wisdom may have it. Much as sometimes our treatment of transient foreign workers holding Work Permits and S Passes leaves much to be desired, they do the jobs that Singaporeans are not prepared to do.

Where there is deep concern relates to jobs for PMEs. Here, our liberal open-door immigration policy is seen as compromising the prospects of Singaporeans. Employers often do not do enough to develop local talent since it is much easier and quicker to seek an "off the shelf" solution in a foreign professional.

The second pillar of the White Paper is at best encapsulated in the following statement: "… our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities to meet Singaporeans' hopes and aspirations." In this regard, the Government has stated that it is not growth at all costs. But I am discomforted by the thinking that the population and workforce must support the economy. Should it not be that the economy should support the population and the workforce?

There is a fundamental difference between the two approaches, notwithstanding that the economy and workforce are interlinked. In the former, which is what the White Paper advocates and our current approach, if the economy is growing at a red-hot pace, then the population and workforce must be up to the task of facilitating that. The economy leads the way. This is where, if we need 6.9 million on this little red dot to support the economy, we jolly well proceed full steam ahead to make that happen. But are we letting the tail wag the dog? Are we putting the cart before the horse?

Let me emphasise that economic growth is crucial. It is what that has made my family progress much, all within one generation. But the economic considerations cannot overwhelm our policy responses.

In the latter approach of the economy supporting the population and workforce, we determine the population size that is optimal and the economic growth that can be supported by such a population. This approach does not preclude immigration at all. We will need immigration so long as our TFR is below replacement level. Even then, I question the planning parameter of the

Page: 47

need to augment our population using a TFR of 2.1.

The White Paper's emphasising the need for immigration — or the alternative scenario of a lower quality of life — remains quintessentially material and pragmatic. There is limited appeal to and a lack of definitive assurance of the affective dimension that a contested major policy like immigration is so badly in need of. A consequence of close to half a century of nation building, Singaporeans are beginning to imbibe an aspirational approach towards citizenship. This precipitation of a Singapore national identity and belonging means that a hyper-rationalistic justification of immigration is not likely to nurture an affective acceptance of the immigration policy and regime.

As it is often said, the longest distance is between the head and the heart. Singaporeans' growing sense of national identity has made them more protective of the home turf; the economic and other rationalistic justifications seem all too expedient and enervating of the national spirit, identity and ethos. The immigrant is seen quite often in mono-dimensional terms, as an economic immigrant.

A vibrant economy is our shared purpose, but what are the shared values that will discipline the shared purpose? There are a few ways to a vibrant economy, each with its own price tag. But we cannot be penny-wise and pound-foolish. A vibrant economy cannot be sustained if there are no shared values. And a strong Singaporean Core can provide those sets of shared values.

The White Paper's third pillar states that "we must continue to keep Singapore a good home. Our city must continue to be well-managed, well-planned, and well-developed". To that end, infrastructure needs of a changing population and economy have to be met in a timely and efficient way, while preserving and enhancing a green environment. Madam, no one can disagree with that.

However, the White Paper was deafeningly silent on the question of affordability given the larger population numbers which will put pressure on the cost of living and the quality of life. What about the income divide? The overwhelming focus in the White Paper on the hardware means that the crucial software bit was left out in the cold. How do we endow a soul amid the sprouting of concrete and glass around us? We must not confuse state- or economy-building with nation-building.

Page: 48

We have heard a lot about the benefits that come from a larger population, but what about the costs that come with a larger population? What happens beyond 2030? The White Paper, however, jam-brakes there. How are we going to support the increase in population when the new citizens themselves reach the end of their working lives in 2050 or 2060? The White Paper does not tell us. Are we kicking the can further down the road, a can that will only get larger with each kick? Are we going to require substantial population top-ups every generation such that the Singaporean identity becomes meaningless?

We should assume that we are unable to raise our TFR to replacement level. We have to do more smartly and with less. Yes, immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore's political, economic and socio-cultural landscape. This means that immigration will continue to be politicised and remain a contested issue. Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration. Singaporeans will be persuaded, at both cognitive and affective levels, if it can be shown that the overall welfare is increased, our interests adequately looked after, and our identities secure and safeguarded. More importantly, special efforts will have to be made for those affected negatively by the immigration policy, in particular, Singaporean workers whose wages or prospects have been or will be depressed by the large numbers of transient foreign manpower at the low-skilled and even at the skilled levels.

Let me touch on immigration. I have reservations about how integration can be meaningful, given the rapid influx of immigrants not just between now and 2030 but in the past decade. Our immigration policy must strive to ensure that the average Singaporean is not made to feel inferior or that they are taken for granted. The "Singaporean First" policy must not be mere lip service. It must have substantive merit and meaning. For a start, the Government should completely drop the use of the term, "foreign talent". Used in official discourse to reinforce the message that newcomers add value to our society, this superlative buzzword is terribly marginalising and patronising.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join the debate. I rise in support of the Motion and the proposed amendments. I support the principles and the intent of the paper, but I have a problem with some of the details.

First, I would bring Members' attention to footnote 12, on page 40, where reference is made to nursing as a low-skilled job. Madam, this is inaccurate and inappropriate. My nursing colleagues are dedicated, hard-working skilled professionals, doing a challenging job in difficult conditions. They take pride in their work, they have specialised knowledge, specialised skills. They are not interchangeable warm bodies and pairs of hands. Many have degrees and years of post-graduate training. We need to inspire more Singaporeans to join the caring profession, and to label it in this way serves no one. This should be fixed. I believe an amendment and an apology would be appropriate.

Page: 63

I have further concerns. As has been pointed out, the growth of our population will require extensive building and redevelopment.

The Land Use Plan clearly explains how and where we will obtain land for building more homes and amenities. Instead of emphasising the parts of Singapore which will be built up, developed and redeveloped, is it possible that we can have lists of more sites that will be preserved, identified as such, and protected? There are many plans for green spaces. How many will be permanent? Would the Government be prepared to identify more areas which will never be redeveloped? Would we be able to reassure citizens that they can enjoy specific green or open or communal spaces in perpetuity? Preserving the old and the familiar spaces is important as it ensures that people do not feel constantly displaced, which is likely to happen when their physical environment keeps changing. The Land Use Plan does detail the many parks, and park connectors that we have and that are planned. But it fails to specify to what extent these and other shared spaces are protected, and to what extent we commit to preserving our surroundings.

Surely, we can find a few more sites within our wonderful 715.8 square kilometres, where we can boldly say, "Your grandchildren can enjoy this as much as you do, please take care of it?"

Grandchildren are my next concern. There is a severe shortage of childcare places, nationwide 20,000 more childcare places are being planned by 2017, four years from now, but I have childcare centres that are now struggling to recruit staff. How is the Government planning to deal with the severe shortage of labour in this sector, in the face of plans to further restrict foreign labour growth? What plans are there to ensure that these places will be operational in good time?

Our towns, especially our new towns, are populated over a relatively short time. If we ramp up childcare capacity too aggressively, in about 10 years or more, some of it is going to be oversupply. Would the Government consider solutions to significantly increase the provision of childcare facilities at the workplace instead? The proportion of employees within a company or cluster of businesses that need childcare is less likely to vary significantly over time, as compared to within a new housing estate. This approach will address the issue of over-demand for services in a young housing estates as well as the later oversupply when the children grow up. It will also make it easier for working parents, rather than having to rely on the grandparents. With our changing demography, the age gap between a grandchild and a grandparent is increasing. For some families I know, the grandparent is unable to care for the child, nor

Page: 64

take their first-born grandchild to the childcare centre. I am suggesting that we augment the current capacity with a different emphasis, to serve the needs of families with different challenges.

Similarly, the Government has put forth proposals to increase our infrastructure, and has defended these with confidence and certainty. Minister Khaw has repeatedly said "Don't worry" and reassured us that "It will be awesome". Madam, the plans are indeed awesome, but I do worry. How will this infrastructure get built on time in the face of a tightening labour pool? To what extent will the cost of providing this infrastructure rise, as the cost of labour rises?

Madam, one further concern I have is the lack of explicit discussion in the White Paper of its possible inaccuracy. Population science is not exact, and as past experience has shown, forward projections can turn out to be off the mark, sometimes by a very significant margin. We have in the past reached particular milestones of population size or fertility rate drop way ahead of the forecast. The presentation of facts, statistics and projections with such confidence has given rise to the perception that many of these factors are under the direct control of the Government, when they are not. As Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin alluded to yesterday, there is no master control for GDP, nor for migration numbers. There are instead hundreds of daily individual decisions to serve specific purposes: do we support this company? Do we support this business? Do we allow this family to bring in their relative? Do we allow this person to stay in Singapore and become a citizen? An explicit statement of the bigger uncertainty would be a completion of the commitment to transparency.

Madam, some have suggested that today is not the end of the debate, but rather the beginning. Others have suggested that if we are still debating these issues in the future, we will be in trouble. Respectfully, I disagree with both. These issues and the way we struggled with them have defined us since independence. We have discussed and debated them time and time again. How we deal with these challenges and issues going forward will continue to define us as a people. We should not shy away from debating these matters in the future, and we should not pre-suppose that we can set in motion a single path that will solve all our problems for the future.

Madam, while I support the principles described and the intent of the White Paper to secure a future for Singapore and Singaporeans, I find the confidence with which the numbers are described unnerving, and I would like to propose that we need a regular review along the way to see if the projections are accurate, and if we need a course correction, perhaps in the middle of the next

Page: 65

term of government may be an appropriate point.

I also have concerns about the Workers' Party's proposal. I agree that it is likely to jam the brakes on our economy, to drive away jobs, to increase unemployment and to reduce opportunities for our young. But they have also committed the error of unswerving confidence in their calculations. There is no way that they can predict the effects of their proposal with such accuracy. I think both sides of the House should be more forthcoming with the uncertainty associated with the numbers that they have presented to the public.

Speaking on this, to expand on the analogy from my colleague, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, both sides of the House need to admit that they are performing this surgery for the very first time.

Madam, this debate has seen a significant ideological shift on the part of the Government. Building ahead of need, slowing down the pace of economic growth, reducing the inflow of foreign labour. This is on top of recent other ideologic changes, such as the institutionalisation of Workfare, making permanent GST vouchers. But, amazingly, in this House, in this week, we are not debating the fundamental ideology, we are not debating the fundamental positions, we are not debating where we want to go. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, largely we all agree on what we all want.

Instead, if we strip away the rhetoric, if we look past rewriting slogans, look past the sound bites and throwaway one-liners, we are debating what to be optimistic about and what to be pessimistic about. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian writer, who was a communist jailed by the fascists, his most famous quote attributed to him is "Pessimism of the intellect and Optimism of the Will". In 1929, writing from prison, he went on to explain and expand upon this, as that "The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and yet without becoming disillusioned".

The balance of heart and mind, hope and reality. If we look at the White Paper, the Government is pessimistic about its ability to affect some things, perhaps the falling fertility rate, the ageing population certainly, the labour participation rate. Conversely, it is very optimistic about delivering infrastructure, restructuring the economy, and maintaining a standard of living for all Singaporeans. The Opposition seems to be pessimistic about everything, but that is the role of an Opposition in our democracy. If we examine their position closely, however, they do have hope and they do have faith. The Opposition believes that the Government, the PAP government, can turn

Page: 66

around the TFR. The Opposition has faith that MOM policies will be able to increase the labour force participation rate. The Workers' Party believes that business will survive the restrictions on foreign labour. They have hope and they have faith. They are pessimistic, however, that Singaporeans cannot adapt to the changing realities of the world. They believe that Singaporeans cannot be happy in the Singapore of today. They cannot imagine a bright future for Singapore and Singaporeans.

We are a participatory democracy. This White Paper has sparked a national interest and citizens from every walk of life have joined in. We are a thriving democracy with the security and freedom to debate such important matters in peace and walk out of this Chamber as friends. That in itself is a remarkable achievement. This is the bright future that was imagined for Singapore many, many decades ago.

In this House, this week, we have been presented sometimes with a series of dichotomous choices. In the rhetoric and the debate we have been asked to choose. Choose between survive as an Exceptional Nation or wither away into irrelevance. Choose between preserve our way of life or change beyond all recognition. Choose between growth or happiness, hope or reality, heart or mind, us or them.

These are false choices. These are not the only way forward. Ours is an exceptional nation, a remarkable state and an incredible city. Ours is a story told with disbelief, excitement and wonder, all round the word, a story that is still being written. We should not be writing the last chapter now. We should choose to reject the false choices on offer. We can do what needs to be done. We can do the right thing. We can discuss uncomfortable, unpopular issues and still build a consensus. We can choose to preserve our way of life and embrace change and diversity. We can choose growth and happiness. We can embrace diversity and yet remain one united people. We can choose to have our eyes open to reality, our heads clear and our hearts full of hope. That is what has got us here today and that is what will take us all forward together [Applause].

Page: 67