Debated in Parliament on 8 Feb 2013.
Debate resumed.
Mdm Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I would first like to thank Dr Janil for his inspiring speech and also for drawing our attention to footnote 12. Our friends in the nursing profession and the unions had also earlier brought the matter to my attention. I would like to inform Members that I intend to make a corrigendum to footnote 12 on page 40 of the Population White Paper, to delete this segment: "Certain low-skilled jobs like personal services, retail and nursing are hard to offshore. They will still be needed even as the economy upgrades."
Page: 68
This classification of low-skilled jobs is not correct. I would like to apologise to those whose professions have been unintentionally misrepresented. I personally have the greatest respect for those in the nursing profession. This is a noble and caring profession which all of us and our loved ones depend on and appreciate. Thank you, Madam.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate at a slightly late juncture. There are many tough acts to follow, and I was a bit concerned about not having enough to cover that would be new. But the opportunity has also been presented for me to follow the debate with great interest over this White Paper, both in the House and in the broader public domain. It has been a heated debate, high on emotion, with diverse voices being heard and difficult questions being asked.
This in itself has been heartening because, as we have seen from the issues raised, this White Paper is really not just about population, but about the future of Singapore and our way of life.
Many of us feel deeply about the questions raised in the Paper, and I have many passionate discussions with both Members of this House as well as of the public. I think this reflects the fact that, while the premise of much of the Paper stems from hard facts and numbers and involves complicated formulae and policies, at heart, we are talking about the soul of our country.
Children, ageing families, foreign neighbours, quality of life – these are things which touch an emotional chord with all of us, and go far beyond political rhetoric and grandstanding. I, for one, am glad that we are addressing these things at this time, because there are clear signs that we have reached an inflexion point in our growth as a nation, with evolving social norms, economic challenges and shifting political trends becoming more commonplace.
There have been disagreements about the need to place a hard economic growth target like gross domestic product (GDP) as the basis for projections about our population's future. In a recent editorial by Bloomberg published in the TODAY newspaper, the use of GDP as a measure of progress was questioned, given that it measures output, without any insight into the quality of that output. It can obscure growing inequality and depletion of resources while focusing on a very narrow band of factors. But I think it is not a bad place
Page: 69
to start.
History has shown that, as countries move along the path to becoming more developed, slower and slowing growth becomes increasingly inevitable. We have no natural resources to speak of. Our people are our true assets. If that engine fizzles, we will face the very real possibility of slow or no growth in a few short decades.
Much of our debate so far has centered around the trade-off between growth and quality of life, and whether we can stave off a crowded, congested future while maintaining a defined rate of economic growth. Worryingly, some Members have suggested that we can turn off economic growth or slow it down while population issues are dealt with, and then turn it back on once society is ready. But economic growth, foreign investment and confidence from companies and investors from abroad do not work that way. If we slip in terms of our international competitiveness, we have many rivals ready and waiting in the wings to take our place.
Slow or no economic growth may sound acceptable when contrasted with overcrowding, an over-taxed infrastructure or a greater number of foreign strangers living amongst us. But would we be acceptable it if it means less jobs for our future generations, lower salaries and a bleak economic outlook for decades ahead? Is this what we want for our future and for our future generations? I think most of us would say, no. There has been talk that such scenarios are part of fear mongering. It is easy to say that when there still is growth.
How the calculations from which the estimates for population size in 2020 and 2030 are derived are not spelt out in great detail in the White Paper. These are understandably complex and complicated, but if there were attempts to better explain the formulae involved, it might make for more informed public debate.
Instead, the figure that has caught the most attention is the 6.9 million that lies at the far end of the range of estimates for population size in 2030.
The clarification that this number is the worst-case scenario is juxtaposed against the fact that it includes estimates of foreigners in Singapore – something that the White Paper emphasises can actually be controlled by policies.
Page: 70
The strains on the current infrastructure have made many questions whether we can, in fact, accommodate an up to 30% increase in the number of people living here. But we have to bear in mind that much of this perspective is based on our current understanding and impressions of the existing infrastructure. This will surely change and, hopefully, improve by 2030.
A question that has also been raised is the impact a larger population, which potentially includes a larger proportion of permanent residents, will have on the concept of National Service (NS). With second-generation PRs having to serve NS, and many of them not necessarily growing up in Singapore during their young and formative years, what is the likely effect of having these individuals serving in NS in defence of a land which they may feel not a significant tie or connection with?
Should they choose to return to their countries where they were born or grew up in in subsequent years, would this have a significant impact on the force of operationally ready NSmen which plays a major role in Singapore's defence?
Mdm Speaker, I would like to turn now specifically to the issue of marriage and parenthood. As a single 30-something, I am part of the demographic that the White Paper addresses when it exhorts Singaporeans to settle down and have children. Not that I am welcoming even more difficult questions in the Lunar New Year festivities this weekend.
While the hard facts and data certainly struck a chord with me, I must say I felt something was missing, a sentiment that many of my peers have echoed. Judging by views expressed in the media, both online and traditional, it would appear that others share it as well, and that is that facts and figures can only take us so far.
Singaporeans are becoming more concerned with the quality of our growth, not just the quantity.
The White Paper acknowledges this when it echoes the Prime Minister's National Day Rally last year in listing Hope, Heart and Home as the three key pillars for a sustainable population. But I cannot help but wonder if this would have resonated more effectively with more people if the transition from this to hard GDP targets and economic estimates was made more gradually.
Page: 71
While critical to a nation's growth, an overly obsessive focus on economics can obscure the importance of other less tangible values and factors that can play a key role in the decision to settle down or to start families. When I talk with my friends who are single like me, or married without children, the conversations of late have tended to focus on quality of life, work-life balance, the need for a healthy, clean environment to raise children, a society that exhibits and champions values that we all believe in.
At the same time, we also wonder if the Singapore of our children will be a place that we recognise, with distinct features and characteristics that are unique to us, somewhere that we feel is home. Or will it be a place that resembles the office of a multinational corporation – clean, efficient, with people from all over the world here to live and work, but not necessarily to lay down roots, like Dubai, as one hon Member mentioned, a city with no soul but lots of spending money.
Will we be pushed to find ways to continue working past the current retirement age to shore up the dwindling workforce in a bid to ensure a strong Singaporean Core? Or will we eventually be able to aspire to early retirement so that we can enjoy time with our families, to travel a little bit and experience the broader world? Will the Singapore of the future be a clean and healthy environment, with an emphasis on green sustainability, fresh air, places of nature to be enjoyed by both young and old, that is uncongested and beautiful? Will it offer options for leisure and entertainment, with art, culture, sports and music lending greater texture to the social fabric, something that the White Paper does not address at length? Or will our drive for continued progress see these aspects being swamped by an overwhelming focus on productivity and efficiency gains?
The White Paper states that Singaporeans share certain key values and aspirations, including meritocracy, a fair and just society, and respect for one another's culture. But it does not spell out how we will ensure these values continue to be transmitted to younger generations who are born and grow up in an environment where such things could be taken for granted, much less to foreigners who are new to our shores.
If the White Paper is anything to go by, it looks like financial incentives will again be the main levers that will be used to hopefully achieve the population growth deemed necessary for our long-term success. This does not address some key issues, among which is the point of reproduction in the first place. Minister Grace Fu touched on this earlier this week when she explored the reasons for having children. Besides for the sake of carrying on our bloodline,
Page: 72
or the security for parents that offspring can provide later in life, many people actually have children to enjoy being in a family unit and to create a relationship with their young ones. One would assume that most of us would hope to give a good life to our children, one that is stable, secure and safe.
From a policy perspective, financial levers are probably preferred given that they are easier to design, plan and implement, compared to the less tangible elements that go into the shaping of multi-faceted environments, replete with values and value systems. But, perhaps, the greater value of the White Paper is that it has inspired us to look at those intangibles and, hopefully, to find solutions that address them.
Mdm Speaker, we have not had much time to debate this White Paper – five days to consider measures which reach 18 years into our future, and beyond. We have heard views from both the PAP and the Workers' Party and other Members, and we seem to be heading in roughly the same direction, with some differences in numerical targets. Regardless of 5.9 million or 6 million or 6.9 million, I think the important thing is for us to keep moving forward. As we do so, I would like to ask the Government to be responsive and flexible and to consider a yearly review of the trends, and the effects of the measures laid out in the White Paper, so that we can know if we are on track, or we need to adjust.
As interest shifts from the White Paper to red packets this weekend, I am sure the broader debate on this White Paper will continue long after our debate in this House ends. I hope the Government will also continue to listen to that discussion, as closely as we have this past week. The answer to the questions in the White Paper lie not just with this House or anyone party, it lies with all of us, all Singaporeans. Looking back on our history and what we have overcome, I am hopeful for the future. Perhaps, I am optimist but while many of my fellow Members have supported the Motion with heavy hearts, I choose to support the Motion and its amendments with a hopeful one [Applause].
Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.
Page: 73
Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Debate resumed.
Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have the unenviable task of being the last speaker for one of the toughest debates in this House. Toughest because it is dealing with the tension between balancing and winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, with regard to the complex economic, demographic and social challenges.
As the last speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to what everyone else had to say, ponder about why certain people said certain things, and where they were coming from. I saw how Singaporeans responded, be it through face-to-face discussions, in dialogue sessions, in the forums and social media, and again, wonder why they respond in those ways.
Through my experience as a social worker, I know that such reflection is an important part of the debate. Often, the process and the dynamics are as important, if not more than, the outcomes.
When the White Paper was first released, the negative reactions came fast and furious. I recalled having very mixed feelings myself. Instinctively, I could understand why Singaporeans were up in arms. At the same time, it was difficult to understand how the sincere desire of the Government to share with Singaporeans its assessment and challenges that we will face and what we need to do, is being met with perceptions that the Government is all out to bring in more foreigners and make Singaporeans strangers in their own land.
I remember thinking, why is this so? We are all Singaporeans! We are all here to serve in the best interest of Singapore and Singaporeans. The employees that we want to ensure have and keep their jobs, are Singaporeans. The employers, many of whom are owners of SMEs, are Singaporeans. The families we want to support are Singaporeans. Why would people think that the Government would propose solutions that are detrimental to Singaporeans? It
Page: 74
just does not make sense.
If we can put the emotions aside for a while, what is this debate about? Is this debate about planning for our future? Yes. Is it necessary to do so? Yes, as we expect this to be the preoccupation of any responsible Government. Who are we planning this future for? Singaporeans. It has to be! Although some segments are saying it is not meant for Singaporeans. I wonder why. Is it about ensuring that our children continue to enjoy a high quality of life in 20 years' time? Definitely! As parents, we want the best for our children. Is it about making Singaporeans lose their jobs to foreigners? No! Again, why would a responsible Government want to do that?
It is about ensuring Singaporeans in 2030 continue to have jobs, not just jobs, but jobs that meet their aspirations. How can this happen? We need to make sure there is sustainable growth to meet the aspirations of our young generation.
And then there was this whole question why discuss such a sensitive topic that the Government knows will only raise the emotional and political temperatures? The Government could have chosen to be short sighted and just focus on one election cycle at a time, as in many other countries. Why not? It is logical and makes sense. Why risk political capital and incur more unhappiness to talk about such hot topics when all it needs to do is just to focus on the here and now.
But as I sat listening to such arguments, it struck me that whichever positions we all started out with, we stuck by them. We dug in, we made impassioned arguments. So after five days of debate with almost every member of this House speaking, have we covered all the different viewpoints? To a large extent, I think we have. But I still wonder, what is missing in our effort in connecting with Singaporeans? It is a process we must continue to be mindful of, otherwise, we will always struggle to understand why good meaning intentions are often easily misunderstood.
Madam, I can understand the sentiments of Singaporeans. I share many of the concerns Singaporeans that have been articulated, especially their concern about over crowdedness and with more foreigners competing for jobs and space.
At the same time, I also hear, quite loudly, the cries of our Singaporean businessmen on their concerns about their own business survivability. As a
Page: 75
Member of Parliament whose ward comprises 75% private estate dwellers, I have met many of my Singaporean residents who are business owners. Recently, I organised a dialogue session as part of the "our Singapore Conversation" series with these SME owners, who are my residents, all of whom are Singaporeans, and many raised these manpower issues, seeking MOM's understanding on their need for foreign workforce to ensure their business survive.
Yes, we should encourage them to restructure. We should support them more to innovate and improve the productivity of their local workers. One young restaurant owner almost came to tears when she came to see me one day saying she has to close her restaurant for a couple of weeks as she could not get approval for her foreign staff application. I felt sorry for her. I know how much she aspires to make her dream come true.
She is a Singaporean who has a dream and is pursuing that dream. In that, she hopes for support, for the Government agency to understand her struggle to employ Singaporeans. She was prepared to pay reasonable wages. She advertised for weeks. She is one of many SME owners whom I have met and they share the same struggles.
At this point, it is interesting to note the differing mental models of the two groups. For many businesses, they honestly believe that they have tried to be as productive and have tried to recruit Singaporeans but to no avail, and they honestly believe that foreign workers are their only solution.
But Singaporeans have been shouldering the stresses and burdens of an increased population for the last five to 10 years. Many will ask, "Where is the promise of productivity where businesses will do more with less? And why must Singaporeans be the ones who must continue to face the burden of an even larger population, without being convinced that all else has been attempted and tried to no avail?"
More importantly, Madam, the tensions above reflects a more fundamental challenge. The Government seems to be the arbiter of the interests of all its citizens – the business owners, the employees. It is expected to hear both parties and try to please. Can the Government, instead, facilitate the conversation between them?
Have the businesses informed Singaporeans what they have done, or are doing to restructure, to put in place new systems that will enhance work
Page: 76
processes and productivity, that the gains from these will go to Singaporeans, that their HR practices or policies favour all efforts at employing Singaporeans and the challenges they face in doing so?
These are ingredients of the new social compact not just between the Government and Singaporeans, but also among Singaporeans, taking ownership of this very important aspect of this debate. I think we all agree that we cannot not do with supplementary foreign workforce. The question is how much should we depend on? That is why one of our key answers is to increase our TFR.
Some have argued that we have been barking up the wrong tree – that giving more bonuses will not reverse the TFR. I think we can agree that bonuses alone are not sufficient. The Government has been hearing the feedback – thus the recently announced enhancement to the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package certainly goes beyond the bonuses – making homes available and affordable early, better social infrastructure for families and so on.
Madam, are these measures enough to reverse the TFR? Can we do more? Herein lies the tension – what should Singaporeans do? Is the enhanced M&P Package attractive enough to tip the balance and reverse the trend?
When the White Paper was first released, I had a chance to speak to many young couples. To my surprise, a common reaction to the White paper was that they will not have more children as they are concerned over the pressures and uncertainties of the Singapore of 2030, with its larger numbers and higher congestion. They were afraid they cannot give the best for their children. They were not prepared to subject their children to the pressures and stressors of living in a competitive society like Singapore. They worry that their children cannot afford to buy their own homes when they grow up. It is almost as if the M&P Package announced just a week before had already lost its impact even before it was given a chance to find its footing.
Madam, what should be our social compact with our young Singaporean couples? Do we as a society see this issue as an issue of our own survival, as our earlier generation did following the early post independence years? And do we have the tenacity to overcome the tension of almost becoming a minority in our own homeland? Can our citizens see child bearing as a duty to ensure the survivability of Singapore and the sustenance of the Singaporean Core? Or is this the wrong question to ask?
Page: 77
Interestingly, I was told that there is a school of thought circulating out there, supported by research done elsewhere that suggests that TFR may be inversely proportional to population density. I am not familiar with the research in this area, but this seems to correlate with the reactions of the young couples I have met who are concerned about having more children. Having emerged from the academia, I have always appreciated the importance of keeping our minds open. When evidence of such research is thrown up in the midst of our discussion of such sensitive issues, how do we respond? Do we see these as disruptive derailers to be cast aside?
Or, are we prepared to look at alternative data and scrutinise the evidence, so that we are clear where we are heading? Because if the research on TFR and population density were true, what might be its implications on our strategies to increase TFR while at the same time bringing in more foreign workers to supplement the local workforce? Perhaps, it would be good for the NPTD to review the research to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how else we can turn around the TFR tide.
Madam, we have spent the last five days debating one of the most sensitive issues affecting Singaporeans. Beyond the rhetoric, beyond the rationalisation, beyond the economic numbers, beyond the 5.9 million or 6.9 million – Singaporeans ask – is this really for me? Have you listened to me? Can I be certain that this will make my life and my children's life better in 20 years' time?
Have we convinced Singaporeans? Even if we have not fully, I hope we would have at least convinced Singaporeans that we will continue to improve on our efforts at connecting and communicating with them, closing the gap and seeing it in their perspective. At least we would have convinced Singaporeans that the Government is honest and prepared to present the bitter realities and hard truths – that the Government is not afraid to admit previous shortcomings and is resolute to overcome and not repeat them.
Madam, thus the Motion before us is not just about endorsing the White Paper on Population. The Motion asks that the House supports the maintenance of a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking; and that the House recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purposes of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target.
Page: 78
The amended Motion calls on the Government to also place priority on resolving current strains on the infrastructure, particularly in transport; this is critical as many Singaporeans want to see short-term results of what the Government has promised.
It also asks that the Government plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand. This is so that we have sufficient buffers and not be caught off guard again. More specifically, the amended Motion before us also asks the Government to ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans as they should; and that the Government carry out medium-term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.
Madam, the Motion sets an agenda and dictates the deliverables for the Government both in the short and longer term. It reminds the Government if Singaporeans are to trust us with their future, we must convince them with immediate and medium-term results.
We must evolve in our ways of engaging so that the processes and dynamics are as important as objectives and outcomes. Indeed, the social compact moving forward is about consensus building and trust. It is more than telling Singaporeans "we know best" or "trust us". I also hope that Singaporeans will be fair to the Government. Despite the shortcomings, this is the Government that has taken us through thick and thin. It is a Government that truly cares for Singaporeans – young and old, rich and poor.
At the end of the day, Madam, I hope Singaporeans will see the sincerity that is in every one of us and everything that we do, we do with the best intention of making life better for all Singaporeans – People, Businesses and Government. That is a promise that I hope all of us will strive towards.
Page: 79
PAPERCUTS