A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore

Mr Lee Hsien Loong (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mdm Speaker, since the Population White Paper was released last week, there has been a lot of heated debate within and outside this House. The Government knows this White Paper is not popular. Many people had voiced their dissatisfaction. The common view is that the Government should try to solve the more pressing and immediate problems first, rather than long-term problems. It should get the problems before us out of the way before setting its sights on the long-term ones.

Many people also said that Singapore is already very crowded, and asked why the Government still wanted to increase its population? I understand why people feel this way.

Page: 81

Today, I want to explain the objectives and intent of this White Paper – why we want to do this, why we want to do an unpopular thing. First, let me clarify again that 6.9 million is not a target. This number is a planning parameter to help us plan for future infrastructure. When we expand our MRT network, hospitals, public housing, parks and other amenities, we use this number as a reference. We want to prepare for more, to plan for the just-in-case. And if we do not have the need, at least we have a fallback. We do not plan to increase the population to 6.9 million. This is not our intent.

The Government's reason for proposing this White Paper was to spur Singaporeans to look into the long term and start implementing some solutions. We are facing problems such as an ageing population and low birth rate, which would bring about negative consequences. If we do not start tackling these problems now, our population would dwindle and our economy would lose its vitality. I feel that we should not leave this problem to the next Government to solve because that would be irresponsible.

Some Singaporeans feel that we should slow down the pace of life and strive for a better life instead of being too concerned with economic growth. I agree that we should not focus only on economic progress and neglect other important aspects of life such as building a better living environment, narrowing the income gap and building a more harmonious society. In fact, we are already doing so. We have deliberately slowed down the influx of foreigners, which will slow our economic growth. We have accepted slower growth so that we can achieve our larger objectives. But the economy is not like a tap which we can adjust to vary the speed of growth. Policies which are too tight may stall the economy; or we might overheat the economy and cause bubbles to form. Many countries face this problem. And an open economy like Singapore would be especially vulnerable. If we look at other countries, we will find that countries which have slower economic growth are usually not the happiest, most united or harmonious countries. The experience of the Western economies shows that a slow-growth economy tends to have higher unemployment, which affects young people the most, with youth unemployment reaching 30% or even 50%. We have seen this happening in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There are many other examples.

This White Paper proposes a compromise between economic growth and giving Singaporeans a high quality of life. Our solution is two-pronged: to encourage more births and raise productivity, and at the same time, bring in an appropriate number of immigrants and foreign workers. Actually, this is a three-pronged approach. A specific suggestion in the White Paper is to reduce the influx of foreign workers from now to 2020. This is in line with public

Page: 82

expectations and would help reduce congestion and the sense of unease. At the same time, it will also help us maintain economic stability and create good job opportunities. From 2020 to 2030, which is very far from now, the picture is less clear. Nevertheless, we will further tighten the influx of foreign workers. We will monitor and review the actual situation and put down more specific policies then.

Therefore, we are introducing the White Paper to look into the long-term interests of Singaporeans. We are not pursuing economic growth blindly, neither are we are blindly growing the population. These are the means and not the end. Our eventual objective is to ensure that this generation and our future generations can continue to live happily and peacefully on this island. Every generation can continue to do well and lead better lives than the preceding one.

I know that Singaporeans hope that we can first solve the more pressing and immediate problems. I would like to assure Singaporeans that the Government is already doing our best to tackle various bread-and-butter issues. These measures are already being implemented. I am sure that you will see the results soon. HDB has already gone full steam on building more flats and we will keep prices of new flats affordable. The rail network would double by 2030, and more trips will run during the peak hours to make it more convenient for everyone to travel to and from work and play. Public transport will be more convenient everywhere you go. The Government will provide more training opportunities for workers to increase their productivity and wages. We will strengthen our social safety net and help the less privileged, building on our important first step in our Budget last year.

However, when we deal with our more immediate problems, we cannot ignore our long-term concerns. And one of our most important longer term concerns is the population issue. It is not some abstract or theoretical concept. We are worried about it because we are worried for Singaporeans. Which group of Singaporeans are we worried about?

First, we are worried about our elderly. It is obvious that the baby boomers, those born after the Second World War, which include me and some of my fellow Cabinet Ministers, are entering old age. In the next 20 to 30 years, we will all be retired and become retirees and senior citizens. We will need to be taken care of. We hope to lead a peaceful, stable and healthy life. This is a major shift in our demographic profile. How to take care of this group of Singaporeans is a big challenge. In other words, how Singaporeans of today can take care of old Singaporeans 30 years from now is a very big issue. Of course, we can talk about this later but time waits for no man. I know that many Singaporeans are

Page: 83

filial and willing to take care of their elderly parents. But I also know that this is not going to be easy, especially when their parents are very sick, or when they have few siblings to share the load, or when their parents are very old and immobile. We all know that being filial is a child's duty, but it is easier said than done. They have parents and children to take care of. They have heavy burdens, both mentally and financially. One way to help them is to bring in foreign workers, particularly domestic helpers and nurses.

The other group I am worried about are the low-income earners. The Government is helping them to increase their income because they are facing the most pressure from competition. And the most practical way is to increase their skills and employability. However, they need jobs and companies to hire them. If we allow companies to have foreigners as part of their workforce, it may help these companies lower business costs and maintain competitiveness, so that they can continue to employ Singaporean workers. In this way, lower income workers can be protected and cushioned from the impact of globalisation. Minister Lim Swee Say pointed out yesterday that if companies are affected, our workers would ultimately be the ones who suffer. These are words from the leader of the union movement and he knows the real situation. Many Singaporeans either work in SMEs or are owners of SMEs. Our SMEs need time to adapt, upgrade and expand into new markets. If they cannot survive because of a shortage of labour, the first to be affected would be low-wage Singaporean workers. Therefore, when we think of the interests of Singaporeans and try to help them solve their problems, we not only have to deal with the direct issues but also need to consider the indirect factors and economic issues. And foreign labour is one of these factors.

Besides elderly and low-income Singaporeans, we also have to think about the prospects for younger Singaporeans. We have to keep our economy vibrant so that younger Singaporeans can fulfil their potential. Without economic growth and opportunities, younger Singaporeans may just decide to migrate to other places, and leave behind the elderly folks here to take care of themselves.

Therefore, because we are worried about the future for elderly Singaporeans, younger Singaporeans and low-income Singaporeans, we need to be very careful when dealing with immigration and foreign worker issues. When we bring in new immigrants, we are concerned about whether they can integrate into our society. Singapore today is very different from our pre-Independence days. Back then, we were not yet a country. Since Independence, because we have gone through the trials and tribulations during the colonial period, the merger and the early years of Independence, our society has become increasingly mature. The different races have gradually developed a

Page: 84

sense of identity, with unique social norms and values.

Under such circumstances, it is more difficult for new immigrants to integrate into our society. As such, the Government will have to double our efforts to help these new immigrants adapt to our society, and ensure that Singaporeans can live harmoniously together with them and integrate the new immigrants as part of us. But at the same time, the Government will also control the number of new immigrants to ensure that it does not go beyond what we can accommodate. Mr Low Thia Khiang said that only Singaporeans who are born and bred here can make up the strong Singapore Core. Foreign immigrants, unlike us, cannot form the Singapore Core. I do not agree with this. I think that this is very pessimistic and narrow-minded thinking. We have all heard of this classical Chinese saying: "The ocean admits all rivers, thus achieving greatness". Chinese wisdom accumulated over thousands of years has taught us that accepting talent from all over the world is the way to build a strong nation. No matter which era we live in, no matter where we live, foreign immigrants, as long as they have the determination, can integrate into the society they migrate to and make contributions. We will consider carefully the number we would take in and how we would bring them in; we will make our policies more comprehensive, but our principles remain steadfast. I believe that in time to come, these people can become "true-blue Singaporeans" as well.

On the whole, this White Paper discusses long-term issues and explores solutions to tackle these problems.

The White Paper proposes a basic blueprint and solution so that we can plan for the long term, particularly in terms of infrastructure development.

The overarching principle in our population strategy is very clear. The Government will always put Singaporeans first. Singaporeans will continue to make up the majority of the population here and form the strong Singapore Core. All along, the Government has given differentiated treatment to citizens and non-citizens. Singaporeans enjoy preferential treatment in education, housing and healthcare so that they can enjoy the fruits of our economic growth. In recent years, the Government has sent a clearer signal by further differentiating the benefits of citizens and non-citizens. This is necessary and the right thing to do, as Singapore Citizens are the owners of this society and the Government is elected by Singaporeans and has to be accountable to Singaporeans. However, Singapore's success cannot rely on the Government alone. Singaporeans need to be the mainstay of our society. They need to strive for the best and be the driving force for the progress of the country and themselves; they cannot be mere passengers. Singaporeans also need to help

Page: 85

one another and move forward together as a nation. The Population White Paper is built on this principle. It is drafted to safeguard the interests of this generation and future generations of Singaporeans, to ensure that Singapore continues to develop steadily and become an even better home for all Singaporeans. The White Paper has set out the various challenges we are likely to face, as well as the policies and solutions to tackle these challenges. But a White Paper cannot solve every problem. Therefore, I hope that Singaporeans will continue to discuss these issues, so that the Government can continue to improve on our policies and better prepare Singapore for its future.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I support the amended Motion. The White Paper and the debate are the culmination of a year-long process. We have consulted stakeholders; we have published Occasional and Issues Papers; we have engaged many Singaporeans; we have received feedback from thousands of people and distilled all these strands into the White Paper; laid out the issues comprehensively, and what we need to do to address these issues.

The White Paper has triggered some strong reactions which Members have reflected in this House. Some are upset that we are talking about long-term problems before solving immediate issues. Many fear that the way we are going, Singapore will no longer be Singaporean that we will be overwhelmed by immigrants and foreigners. Many Members raised this. Many, many people have objected to the figure of 6.9 million and hence, the passionate and difficult debate in this House this week.

Why has the Government introduced this White Paper now, or even introduce this White Paper at all, knowing that population and immigration is such a difficult and unpopular subject? Because I know that we – all Singaporeans – face a very difficult problem together that is growing day by day. As your Government, it is our duty to share this problem with you.

We are producing too few babies, our society is ageing, and if we do nothing our population will soon start shrinking like Japan's. What does that mean for all of us? What must we do about it – and when I say we, I do not just the Government, I mean also individuals, groups, companies, SMEs – how do we prepare ourselves, how do we try to avert some of the problems which we can see coming?

We have to make choices, make adjustments, accept trade-offs which will fundamentally impact our country, our society, our children, our lives. For example, do we allow SMEs more foreign workers to grow their businesses, or

Page: 86

choke them off and force them to upgrade or die? Do we let in more construction workers to build more HDB flats and MRT lines faster, or do we cap the number of construction workers and make Singaporeans wait longer for HDB flats and MRT trains?

So, the discussions last year, and so the White Paper and this debate, so that we are upfront with Singaporeans and we can face our challenges together. It would have been easy for me to "kick the can down the road" – to borrow a phrase from the Workers' Party – and leave the problem to a future government or to a future Prime Minister, or to propose a bogus solution which does not really solve the problem but buys you some political time. For example, declare that we are "setting KPIs for our TFR". And then by the time you find out that nothing has happened, well, perhaps the awkward moment has passed. But it would be irresponsible for me to do so and I hope Singaporeans understand why, after considering this carefully, we have decided to bring the matter out into the open and discuss this sincerely, openly and frankly, even if you may not agree with the proposals or the solutions which we have put out.

Our purpose is to do the best for Singaporeans. Singaporeans are at the centre of all our plans and everything which we do is to improve Singaporeans' well-being, their security and welfare. And everything else – whether it is economic growth, whether it is population policies, whether it is your housing, your trains – those are means to this end.

This White Paper is not just a discussion of a difficult problem. It is really an affirmation of faith in Singapore's future. Believe that Singapore has a future which is worth building, protecting, striving for. Believe that Singapore can grow from strength to strength and the next generation deserves to live better lives than this generation. All human beings have this desire to build on what you have inherited, to pass on to your children something better than what you have. I think Singaporeans share this deep human desire. They want to do this individually in their families; they want to do it in their work; we want to do it collectively as a society. We want tomorrow to be better than today, otherwise why are we striving? And to make tomorrow better than today, we have to get our population policies right, so that we give ourselves the best chance of success.

This is a long-term issue. Tomorrow against today, it is a small difference. Next year versus this year, it is noticeable. Ten years from now, compared to today, the trends have built up and accumulated; another 10 years, they may become irreversible. Therefore, we cannot wait till the convenient moment. We

Page: 87

have to work hard to address the problems.

To address the long-term problems at the same time as we are addressing the current problems which preoccupies Singaporeans, whether it is housing: aggressively building HDB flats, as Minister Khaw Boon Wan has tirelessly been explaining and doing; whether it is transport: accelerating the construction of train lines, bringing in more bus services, and spreading out peak hours as Minister Lui Tuck Yew has also tirelessly been doing; whether it is job competition – reducing our reliance on non-Singaporeans, helping our workers to upgrade, ensuring fair treatment for citizens as Acting Minister Mr Tan Chuan-Jin has been working at and explaining to you; or tackling the cost of living and social safety nets for our lower income groups especially – through many schemes , whether it is Workfare, ComCare and other schemes also to help not so low income groups, but people who may have fallen into difficulties temporarily and who have exceptional circumstances who deserves support. Like families who need to hire foreign domestic workers to look after bedridden seniors. We have schemes, we have arrangements, and we are developing more ways of doing these things. Progressively, step-by-step, whether it is houses, whether it is trains, whether it is cost of living, we are determined to improve things progressively.

In parallel, we have to deal with this population issue. This is a multi-faceted problem. First, it is a problem of numbers: how many babies are born, how many people immigrate, how many people emigrate, how many foreign workers we need, what is our TFR? At that level, it is an exercise in spreadsheets and arithmetic. Anybody can do the sums. Does not mean anybody can make the sums work and solve the problem. But that is only one aspect of our population problem.

Another aspect is identity. Many Members have spoken about it. I think just now Asst Prof Eugene Tan was one of them. Who are we? To our children, to immigrants, to people who are working here, people who are visiting here, who are Singaporeans? It is more complicated for us because we are a cosmopolitan city – unlike say Japan or China – where the population all look the same, speak the same language, and it is quite clear if you are Japanese, you are Japanese.

But in Singapore, who are you? We have to be open, we have to be varied, we have to have all sorts of people here. At the same time, we are not just a city – we are not just like New York or London. We are a nation. So, we need both that vibrancy and openness, but also the sense of identity and the sense of belonging among citizens that we are Singaporeans together. That is a very difficult combination to create – to be cohesive without being close, to identify

Page: 88

with one another and not be xenophobic; to be open and yet not be diluted and dissolve. But that is our karma and we have to keep a balance between the two.

The third aspect of the population issue is the economy: how do we keep thriving and prospering? I almost hesitate to make this argument because everybody in the Chamber – or many people in this Chamber – and many people outside too have taken the view that economics is not so important and that we have over-emphasised economics as a Government. I think I should make my position quite clear. We are not pursuing growth at all costs. We are trying to juggle many different objectives including population, including cohesion, including our social tensions. And we are trading off – reducing immigration, reducing foreign worker inflows, slowing down the economy significantly so as to deal with these tensions and pressures, and so as to address other issues which we want, whether it is quality of life, whether it is income equality, whether it is the environment.

We accept this because we want the growth to be sustainable, we want high quality growth, and we want workers and families to benefit. Finally, it is for Singaporeans. Growth is not for its own sake. But growth is not unimportant. We can only afford to say that it is not, does not matter, because we have already got it. If we did not have it, we would not be so blase. You need growth to improve education and healthcare, to build better homes and towns, to invest in reliable and convenient public transport. If we do not have the resources, you will not have the means and you will not have that quality of life.

We also need growth to improve incomes and I say this advisedly, incomes are important. If you are in the top 5% or 10% of the population, you may say, well, I have enough, I manage, I can live within my means. If you are at the bottom 10% or 20% of the population, or even the medium Singaporeans – not poor, not rich – I think it would be patronising and cavalier for us to say they do not need more; growth is unimportant. It is important for us to raise the income of the low-income Singaporeans. It is important that we are able to have growth which enables a broad mass of Singaporeans to improve their lives. When people say that the cost of living is high, I want to help with cost of living. Really, the best solution is if your incomes can go up, and you have more means to afford the things that you want, then you will be under less pressure. But for the incomes to go up, unless the economy grows, I must rob Peter to pay Paul. Somebody has to volunteer, take the money from me, give it to them. It is not a sustainable solution.

Our experience has shown that, in fact, when the economy is growing, the low-income Singaporeans benefit; their incomes go up. When the economy

Page: 89

crashes or slows down, it is the low-income Singaporeans whose salaries stagnate. And at the top, quite often, incomes continue to rise. It is a problem with us; it is a problem with many countries. And so, that is why, while although we have many objectives and we are trading off, growth still counts, together with sense of belonging and nationhood, together with work-life balance, together with family-friendly environment. One of the things we must not forget is we need to make a living for ourselves.

So, when I think of population and the future, we are trying to look at it from different perspectives. But finally, you are trying to look at it from the angle of how does it affect Singaporeans? And which Singaporeans are going to be affected when you are talking about population? I think there are three groups which I specifically like to mention.

First, the older people. Older Singaporeans, not just today's old people whom you can see and are not so few already, but tomorrow's Singaporeans. That means some of us who are here today who still consider ourselves approaching middle age, but in 18 years' time, 2030, we will say, well, this is the new 50. And that is a very big group of Singaporeans. The numbers are growing rapidly because we are the Baby Boomers, the bulge of kids born after the Second World War. I can see this on the ground. All Members can see this on the ground. In Teck Ghee, when I first became a Member of Parliament, I used to attend a lot of baby shows. Today, there are still baby shows once in a while, but far more senior citizen activities. Just last weekend, I opened a Seniors Activity Centre – very popular, lots of old folks playing bingo, exercising, socialising, and asking for more facilities. That is the face of Singapore tomorrow. What do we do with it?

Today, there are six working citizens supporting one senior citizen. By 2030, without immigration – if we freeze everything and just depend on the citizens – it is going to be 2:1. That means the burden, the responsibility on each working-age person is going to triple. We have to look after the seniors. Yes, they have their CPF. That is very helpful. Yes, the Government is there with HDB schemes and with Medisave, Medifund Silver and with all sorts of schemes, to help the senior citizens look after themselves. But finally, we also need an economy which works; we also need the young people to provide the services to look after them.

As a Member, I see many old folks who have no children or whose children are not supporting them, for one reason or another. They come to me and they ask me for help. And I say well, "What about your family?" They say my family – so many reasons – "I have lost touch with them or, you know, young people

Page: 90

these days." Sometimes, a family is helping, the family comes to see us and they do not have a very easy time because they have aged parents, they have young children and they are trying hard to be filial sons and daughters. Not so easy looking after parents, children and work; sometimes, looking after siblings who have special needs – with healthcare expenses, caregivers feeling emotional stress.

We are doing a great deal to help them with Medifund Silver, active ageing programmes, barrier-free neighbourhoods, all the many schemes which we are coordinating through all of different Ministries. But that is today's 6:1 support ratio. When it goes to two young people to one, I think the pressures on the families and on the society are going to be much higher.

It is easy to say, we stop immigration, we stop foreign workers coming in, as I think Mr Chen Show Mao did. Ageing is a triumph of development. But is it so simple? We will all get old one day and we will need healthcare and support one day, hopefully, later rather than earlier. But can we solve this problem with re-employed retirees becoming caregivers in old folks' homes? Can one child look after two elderly parents, whether financially or physically? Is it sustainable? Is it fair? So, that is the first group I worry about when looking at their demographic trends.

The second group is the low-income Singaporeans. They aspire to a higher income and to a better life, as do all of us. And the Government is also doing our best to help them through better pay and upgraded skills, through Workfare and all our productivity schemes; through vouchers – GST Vouchers and U-Save and many other schemes to cope with the cost of living; through ComCare, Medifund to provide for families and children.

But the best way to help them is to create opportunities for them – opportunities for better jobs, opportunities for earning more, and opportunities to live dignified and fulfilling lives. And they need good jobs. They do not want handouts, in fact. They prefer to stand on their own feet, learn a new skill and provide for themselves as Mr Zainal Sapari and Mr Zainudin Nordin reminded us. But to do this, we have to be able to have a pie which is expanding and the low-income people cannot be burdened heavily looking after senior citizens and old folks at home.

Low-wage workers do fear competition from foreigners, but they also benefit from a controlled inflow of foreign workers because, with a controlled inflow, the company has a mix, the foreign worker lowers their costs, the

Page: 91

company is viable, it hires the Singaporeans. Otherwise, if they close, it is not the foreign worker who has the problem. He goes home but it is the Singaporean who has lost his job, and the employer, the SME boss, who has lost his business, as Mr Inderjit Singh vividly reminded the House.

So, that is the second group we worry about. The third group are young Singaporeans – young today and young, not yet born because we have a responsibility to the Singaporeans to be born. They have many different aspirations. You have heard some of them, as the Members have spoken over the last few days, Mr S Iswaran talked about Khoo Xue Ni, who wants to become a forensic pathologist; Ms Grace Fu talked about Joelle Ng who wants to be a cartoonist; Mr Baey Yam Keng talked about hawker-preneurs, who have a vision, a dream and a passion.

And you see many others like them and TODAY published a population supplement last year, talking about people in law, in social service, people who want to grow their hearts and souls, actualise themselves. And I see them in my constituency – young people from Nanyang Polytechnic come to help me do community work – clean up, paint, tidy up rental flats. They do not have to do it. It is community engagement. They get satisfaction and I think the people who are helped, are very, very pleased. I see other young people. I was at Zion Riverside Hawker Centre one evening and ran into a bunch of them – turned out to be Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) students – full of life. They were from the Rotaract Club on an orientation and bonding camp; passionate about their education, passionate about what they are going to do next in Singapore, looking forward to boundless opportunities. When you are young, all possibilities are opened and it is a marvellous feeling. We have a responsibility to them, to make sure they have those opportunities in Singapore.

They want fulfilling, well-paying jobs – that is not so surprising. But they also would like an exciting, dynamic city, space to pursue diverse interests and the opportunity to go and change Singapore and change the world. We have invested heavily in them – developing their potential, especially through education, so they can thrive in many places, not just in Singapore. We have educated them, so many of them are going to come out as PMETs (Professionals, Managers, Executives, Technicians). Educating them as PMETs is not so hard. Finding PMET jobs for them to do, to match their education, is not so easy. And in many countries, people come out as PMETs and end up in unskilled jobs because the jobs are not there. It happens in China, in Europe, in America.

Page: 92

We are going to have two-thirds of our young people, PMETs, who will be their complement working with them. Some of them will be Singaporeans but if we just go on that balance, it is not going to work. You have to complement them with others who can work with them and that means foreign workers to do jobs, whether it is construction, whether it is as a domestic maid, whether it is in manufacturing, jobs where we do not have Singaporeans and jobs where Singaporeans have graduated out of. So, we need to do this for Singaporeans' future, for the young people's future. To have a city which have opportunities and buzz, to be forward-looking and to be on the move.

We have Singaporeans all over the world. I think from the last number, it is about 200,000, at our best estimate, who are overseas. Many of them are children of parents who are still in Singapore. If you ask around, look around your constituencies, your grassroots, your friends, you will know that many of them have got children living, working and studying overseas. They are part of our global community. It is fine. But if Singapore sputters, stagnates, and if we become a giant retirement home, then our young, with nothing to look forward to here, will move, as Mr Arthur Fong has pointed out. And with two old folks, there will be an empty nest at home.

That has happened in many countries where the opportunities are not there, people have moved. The Irish used to have that happen to them. The Greeks have many young people who have gone all over Europe. I think it will be very sad if that happens to Singapore. So, for the sake of the young, for the sake of their future, we have to think what sort of Singapore we want to see beyond the immediate, beyond the here and now.

Getting our population policy right is important to looking after these longer-term needs of Singaporeans. Having resources; having caregivers to help the elderly; uplifting the low-income, who are the hardest hit by a stagnation; creating opportunities and hope for our young, so that they are anchored here. In other words, all these discussions are about our people, our children, our future.

That is why we have to deal with immediate problems, infrastructure and so on, and the long-term population issues together, to create the most promising future for Singaporeans.

The Motion, as amended by Mr Liang Eng Hwa, makes this quite clear, what it is we are asking Parliament to decide. It sets the objective, to maintain a strong Singaporean Core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have

Page: 93

children, and to supplement this with a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent our citizen population from shrinking. The Motion also lays out the priorities and approaches which the Government should take to resolve the current strains on infrastructure, particularly transport; to plan and develop our infrastructure for the future, ahead of demand; to make sure that the benefits from our population policies flow to Singaporeans.

The Motion also sets out what we propose to do between now and 2020, and beyond 2020. There are two clear phases because between now and 2020, we have some clearer idea of what the world will be like; beyond 2020, we have to wait and see. So, between now and 2020, we are slowing down the inflow significantly and we expect to slow down growth significantly. We are reducing the intake of foreign workers; we are moderating the inflow of new citizens and immigrants to top up the population. We are maintaining Permanent Residents' numbers at about the present size, half a million or so. And in my judgement, this is the most viable path for Singapore to balance our different objectives, to slow down our ageing, to make up for the shortfall in our babies and, at the same time, to keep our economy healthy and create jobs and push companies to upgrade.

It is a significant move, it is a calibrated move. I think this is a judicious thing to do. There is a saying attributed to Laozi. In Chinese, it says, "治大国, 若烹小鲜" or "Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish". In other words, very carefully, gently, do not overdo it, you may ruin it. I think that we cannot overdo things. This is what is judicious and I think this is what is workable.

Beyond 2020, in the next decade to 2030, things are much more uncertain and open. We do not have 20/20 vision of what is going to happen there. The Opposition laughs at us why we do not have 20/20 foresight. Nobody knows what is going to happen in 2030. Even in 2020, you cannot be sure. How would the world be, how would Singapore be? What would we need to do? It will depend on many things; on our TFR, how much progress we make in restructuring? On the global situation, what happens in the world around us? Is it peace, is it war? Is it prosperity, is it a recession or depression or worse?

And therefore, we cannot decide on a population trajectory beyond 2020. That has to be left to a future government and future Singaporeans to decide. And in particular, especially, we are not deciding on a population of 6.9 million for 2030 now. The White Paper actually made that clear but the number got

Page: 94

taken out of context and it took on a life of its own.

So, 6.9 million is not a population target; it is a basis for us to plan our infrastructure for the long term because we need to build ahead of demand and give us options for the future and buffer. We have to start building now and we cannot push that off to the future. If we want new housing estates, if you want new train lines, it takes many years to build and once completed, it is going to be there for many, many more years.

So, beyond 2020, things are still vague, uncertain. And therefore, nearer 2020, we will review the population projections and our policies again. Then we can decide how much further we should slow down in that next decade. To reduce workforce growth to 1%, which is what the White Paper projects, or to cut even further?

The more babies we have, the faster we raise productivity; of course, the fewer foreign workers we need. We know that. We have to work hard at it but we would have to wait and see how things turn out. All these are clearly set out in the amended Motion and I hope that this reassures many Members of Parliament that it is a wise thing for the Government and for Singapore to do.

Many Members have asked, "Where are we heading ultimately? What is the maximum population which Singapore can hold, not just 2030 but in the long term, forever, beyond 2030? What is the final number?" Do we see the population growing indefinitely? No. The island is finite. We can reclaim, we have another few hundreds or another 100 square kilometres, 10,000 hectares possibly. But reclamation does not push my international boundary. And even if I went all the way up to my international boundary and fill up Raffles Lighthouse, that is just that and it will fill up. So, it is finite.

Eventually, we must reach zero population growth. Already the White Paper projects slower growth to 2020 in the population, and even slower growth beyond 2020 in the decade beyond that. Eventually, we will reach zero population growth. When and where? Time will tell. It depends on our physical limits but it also depends on our circumstances and on attitudes of future generations of Singaporeans. What they choose. If you look at the resident population, it is easier to tell what will happen. With the resident population, we can roughly estimate how many babies we are likely to get at the most optimistic calculation and what we think is a sustainable rate of inflow of new citizens.

Page: 95

Now, 3.8 million of resident population – citizens and PRs – and if you go by the White Paper projections, it will stabilise, at most, at 4.2 million to 4.4 million eventually. That is it. After that, it is flat. We will have a population pyramid, which we hope is about a cylinder. Balanced between the old and the young, and not over-balanced with that big heavy bulge of old people supported by very narrow neck of younger Singaporeans.

The resident population is going to stabilise, so that means the non-resident population will also eventually have to level off. Otherwise, we will have more and more non-residents per Singaporean and I do not think that is acceptable. As many Members have pointed out, this is what the Gulf states accept. And they have ratios of 10:1 or may be even more; people are not quite sure. But that is not Singapore's model.

What will the total population add up to eventually? In my view, if you look at 2030, I think six million will not be enough to meet Singaporeans' needs as our population ages because we have this problem of the Baby Boomers and that bulge of ageing people moving through the system. I believe that the total population in 2030 should be significantly below 6.9 million and beyond 2030, in the very long term, it should not increase beyond that. So, the final number should be significantly below 6.9 million. That is something for future generations to decide. Meanwhile, we should build up our infrastructure ahead of demand so that people do not feel the sort of strains which they feel today.

Good infrastructure is critical to ensure a high quality of life for Singaporeans, as our population grows. All Singaporeans would like to see affordable homes, clean and modern neighbourhoods. Families would like to see more parks, more childcare facilities and more integrated townships. The elderly would like to see more Senior Activity Centres, more healthcare facilities and the young would like fun new developments, example, *SCAPE Youth Park, extreme sports, thrilling things and buzz.

Quite a number of Members have pointed out that the living environment affects TFR. I accept that. I believe that. One reason is that I can see among young people, a very, very strong norm now. House first, baby later. Couples want to move in to their own flat before they marry and have babies; even if they are registered, they will wait till their house is ready, which means waiting three to four years from now. Before they move in, I think then they have tea ceremony and so on, then they are formally living together and then we hope the baby will come before very long.

Page: 96

We are ramping up the supply of BTO flats. We hope this will help. I think priority for first-timer parents should help and hopefully will change patterns of behaviour and maybe they will say, "Why do we not start a baby and then we can get a flat faster?" But this is not just a matter of incentives and rewards. It is really mindsets and values and priorities. I hope that Singaporeans will make families one of their core priorities and would be flexible when thinking how and when they want to start families and how they can fit their families into their lives – flexible in their careers, flexible in their aspirations, flexible in their arrangements – with parents, with in-laws, with childcare centres. We will help overcome all these structural impediments but, finally, the couples have to want to have the kid because otherwise if the kid is born unwanted, it will create more problems.

Ministers Khaw Boon Wan and Lui Tuck Yew have presented, over the last few days, our plans for transport and housing. The developments are well underway and I am confident we can, with planning, imagination and creativity, transform Singapore. Punggol will be replicated, but there are also many other towns, each with its own charms and when I am on leave in Singapore, I visit and walk along the park connectors to see and to enjoy for myself what we have built.

Last December, I took a walk at the Bukit Panjang Park Connector, all along the Bukit Timah Expressway, parallel, but beautifully planted nature, well used by residents. Then I went to the Sungei Pang Sua Park Connector. Open, there is a canal, on the other side is a railway line, an old railway line which is going to be a special green neighbourhood once we get our plans done – also very well patronised by the residents. Lots of residents, lots of dogs; all kinds. In fact, there is a special signboard showing all the different kinds of dogs which need to be muzzled. And there were about 20. I did not meet any of them but I saw the signboard.

It means that people are using it, people are enjoying it. The quality of life is there and we can create that quality of life for all our Singaporeans. We will do that. But it is not just improving the physical environment. It is also strengthening the sense of belonging and place – what Ms Janice Koh said – not just a liveable, but a loveable city. I agree with her. That is what we are trying to build, but love cannot always be built. Love has to blossom. And that means that this needs many, many different people to be involved to lavish care, attention, passion, to nurture to develop, to curate, to conserve and to tell the story.

Page: 97

I think we can do that. Common spaces to bond Singaporeans, whether it is a Community Club, whether it is a neighbourhood park, whether it is at the hawker centres – places which have old memories and places where we make new ones, whether it is the Punggol Waterway Kelong Bridge which is aligned with the old Punggol Road, or the new Dawson Estate in Queenstown, or the National Art Gallery.

Icons that make us proud to be Singaporeans – the Marina Bay skyline, still new but I think it is something which we all should be proud of and can be. Changi Airport – an icon not just because it looks pretty but because it works well. The Government will give extra emphasis to this hardware. But as I said, the Government cannot do it alone. We can build a house but only us, the people, can build a home. We can provide the common spaces, but it is up to all of us to nurture the healthy, vibrant communities. We can create the opportunities, but it is up to us, the people, to define who a Singaporean is.

Ultimately, our population policy must strengthen our Singapore identity. Almost every Member of Parliament talked about this. It was not in the White Paper because the White Paper focused on the tangible aspects, but it is very much in our thoughts.

I met a young lady in Teck Ghee market last Sunday and she asked me a very pertinent question. She said, "What is the Singapore Core?"

Let me share my thoughts. The Singapore Core is really made up of people, of us. People who have our families and homes here; people who embrace our values, ideals, who have sunk roots here, who have given their loyalty to Singapore – for whom when you say the pledge, when you see the helicopter flying past National Day, it is a special moment.

Many would have been living in the heartlands, been to school together. We will share memories and experiences. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh talked about some recently in this debate: National Service, SARS, the global financial crisis, 9-11. Fears as well as joys; people willing to defend our nation, our families and friends, our way of life because we feel as one together. We share sorrows together even if they are not our own personal and immediate family. When two young boys were knocked down in Tampines, we all grieved with Mr and Mrs Francis Yap.

We celebrate successes together. When our Special Winter Olympics speed skating team did well and came home with a haul of gold, silver and bronze

Page: 98

medals, we rejoiced. When Nickson Fong, who is a Singaporean IT expert in animation, won an Oscar for a new technique to make 3D animated faces and characters, we celebrated with him. We feel together and we are in a cause together – committed to create a brighter future for all of us.

Many of these people will be our children or will be children of Singaporeans born and bred here. We want Singaporeans, please have more children. In fact, please get married and then have children. To inherit what we have built and to build on what we will inherit, to create a community which can trace its roots back to the generations.

And so, we have the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package. We have tried our best, squeezed our brains dry, put in all the ideas which, after testing and talking to people, we think will work. But I am sure that there are further ideas and we have to keep on welcoming ideas from all sources and trying to raise our TFR.

But not every member of the Singapore Core will or has to be born here. Some will be born elsewhere but have embraced our values and decided to make this their home and nation. Immigrants have been critical to Singapore's success. And over the years, many have embraced Singapore's cause and made important contributions to Singapore, been the fiercest defenders of Singapore and the most able propounders of our cause, pushing our story worldwide. Rajaratnam was just one of them.

That is how we became a shining red dot. As Mr Rajaratnam said, and many of you have quoted, being Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry; it is conviction and choice. I accept that the situation today is different from what it was at Independence in the 1960s. The founding generation was brought together by an accident of history at a time of great change. They were bound together by a cause of survival and building a nation. Because of them, they built a nation with a distinctive Singaporean identity. So, you can recognise a Singaporean – you do not have to wait for him to speak; you do not have to hear him. You just look at him, see how he walks, his body language – there is something about him that says, "I know he is one of us." Not in Singapore but you can be in America, you can be in India, anywhere in the world, he is distinguishable.

Therefore, because we are distinguishable and identify with one another like that, it is harder for a new arrival to come in and become like those who are born and bred here. Never quite the same; the accent will be a bit different; the

Page: 99

body language will be a bit different. Over time, the accent maybe will become more like Singlish, especially if you come when you are young. But the first-generation immigrant has something not quite the same about him – which is also why he is valuable to us because he or she adds something to us. We still need them to strengthen our core, to reinforce our talent pool and to make lives better for Singaporeans.

We expect the new citizens to make the effort to integrate into our community, to commit their loyalty to Singapore. Indeed, there are non-Singaporeans who have lived and worked here, who deeply appreciate what Singapore stands for and they want to contribute to the Singapore story by being Singaporeans. They have seen the world; they have seen how things work elsewhere; they have seen how Singapore is and they say, "Yes, let me make this my home and nation." I say, we should have a big heart and the open spirit to welcome such people and help them become Singaporean. Let their children grow up in our schools; let their children be part of the next generation of Singaporeans.

The US has such a philosophy of citizenship. The ideal is the Statue of Liberty and the poem, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." And in fact, they have brought in successive generations of emigres – Irish, Germans, Scandinavians, Polish, Russians, Jews, Asians – and greatly enriched their society, not without difficulty, not without indigestion, sometimes, tensions, but it has made America what it is. It is still not easy and immigration is a vexed issue today – us against them. They cannot get a good immigration law passed in Congress. As Mr Obama says, "A lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them." And I think, sometimes, we forget that "Most of us used to be them." But this is the US' great strength compared to many other countries.

Japan is the opposite. Very difficult to absorb immigrants, even people who are partly-Japanese who have lived overseas and come back to Japan do not find it easy to integrate into their society. They have people who are half-Japanese – born of American GI fathers after the war – they could not fit in and they were shipped to live in Brazil, which is a much more mixed and tolerant society. Then, the Japanese were short of population. They brought some of them in to live in Japan and try to integrate – it did not work. In the end, they gave them free one-way aeroplane tickets, and said, "Please go back to Brazil and please do not come here again." It is sad but that is the way their society is. One Japanese who is the director of the Japan Immigration Policy Institute says, "America manages to stay vibrant because it attracts people from all over the world. On the other hand, Japan is content to all but shut out people from

Page: 100

overseas."

Those are two extreme models. We are neither the US nor Japan. The US is a continent. If you bring in a few hundred thousand of a new ethnic group, there are some who can melt into the population, or there is some corner of America where they can fit in. Singapore is not like that. But Singapore cannot be like Japan either. Otherwise, we will suffer the consequences which Japan is now suffering, and which you have heard discussed over the last few days.

We have to be open in a controlled way and if others accept our values and commit to building a better Singapore for all of us, can make a contribution and can integrate into our society, then we should accept them as one of our own.

Around the Singapore Core, our society will need a pool of transient non-residents – people who come to live and work here for a time, not to retire, not permanently. They serve Singaporeans – build our flats and MRT lines, take care of our elderly, bring skills and experiences that we ourselves lack. This is the other aspect of the problem which vexes people. If the non-residents outnumber the core, then the core asks, "Are we being diluted?" And the young Singaporeans – like the young girl whom I met in Teck Ghee market – will ask me this question. I did not give her such a long explanation but after a short explanation, she asked a supplementary question. She said, "Will there be a Singapore Core in 2030?"

I said, "That is the whole aim of this exercise. That is what we are trying to achieve! If your generation have more children, then I think it will be easier for us to have a core." She is a teenager now; by 2030, she would be well in child-bearing age.

There is a lot of discussion over the percentage. If you go to 6.9 million, then only 55% will be citizens, and is that enough? I think the numbers do matter. We will track and control the numbers of non-Singaporeans and the inflow of immigrants so that we are not overwhelmed just by the sheer flood of people coming in. Whether the core is strong or not, and how the transients fit in, also depends on the role which the different groups play in Singapore, how they fit into our society.

For example, if a big group of the transients are construction workers here – which is a fact today; I think we have about 250,000 or 300,000 construction workers – temporarily for a project, to do something for us, I do not think that that will weaken the Singapore Core. They are here, they do a job, we are

Page: 101

grateful to them, the job is done, they go home. Provided we can house them and transport them suitably and provided that the numbers do not cause problems in our housing estates or in our public transport. If we can manage that, this is a transient population. We are not expecting you to integrate. You are doing a job and we are grateful for what you are doing for us.

So, we will watch the numbers but the Singapore Core is not just about the numbers. It is about the spirit. I talked about the spirit earlier. If the spirit is strong, we can manage. It is critical to imbue the younger Singaporeans with the Singapore spirit.

We will always put Singaporeans first and make sure that the benefits of our population policies flow to Singaporeans. First of all, in our society, we make sure that Singaporeans are clearly in the majority so that our identity is not diluted by new arrivals. Secondly, in our policies, treating Singaporeans better than non-Singaporeans, especially when it comes to healthcare, education and housing. And thirdly, in our workforce, giving Singaporeans every opportunity to upgrade and take up good jobs and enjoy fair and equal treatment from employers. I know there are grouses; I heard Asst Prof Eugene Tan talk about his specific issues, and Mr Patrick Tay raised this from a union point of view. We will make sure that Singaporeans are fairly treated.

It has to be so and will always be so, because the Government is elected by Singaporeans and responsible to Singaporeans. Let me add also that at the same time, Singaporeans cannot afford to be just here for the ride, passengers. We are not an oil state where citizens can live on the oil wealth and non-citizens do the work. For Singapore to thrive, we Singaporeans must always stay lean and hungry. If we lose our drive, we will lose out. Mr Teo Siong Seng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and others talked about this but I would like to underline this point that there would be privileges to be Singaporeans. It is a special status which we should be proud of but we should not think of it as a perk. It is also a responsibility because we are not just the beneficiaries of the country's success. We also need to be the architects and the builders of our future success.

We have got to fulfil our duties as citizens, defend our country and fellow Singaporeans against danger, especially if you are an NS-man in the SAF or the Home Team, help one another to build a strong community and work together to help Singapore succeed. If we retain this spirit and work together, we can create a much better tomorrow for our children.

Page: 102

That is my promise to all Singaporeans. You are at the heart of all our policies. You are the reason why my team and I entered politics. To work for a better Singapore, to work for Singaporeans. And we want Singapore to do well so that Singaporeans can do well.

This conversation on population does not end today. Based on the public views and based on the Members' speeches, I think it is clear that there are at least three areas which we need to talk about further. "Further" meaning not just over the next few months but over the next few years.

First, marriage and procreation. What more can we do to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies? Secondly, economy. How to strike that balance between a vibrant economy and our other objectives; how do we restructure our economy to rely less on foreigners; how do we benefit Singaporeans more through economic growth especially beyond 2020 when the economy is going to be slower? Thirdly, the question of identity. How do we strengthen Singaporeans' identity even as we keep our society open? These are deep questions, they are important ones for us and we will have to continue to discuss them. I encourage Singaporeans to continue to discuss them over the next few years, including in Our Singapore Conversation.

We are all in this together, as Emeritus Senior Minister Goh reminded us. This is an issue not just for the Government or the PAP but for all Singaporeans, including all political parties. We have to go beyond the rhetoric to develop actual plans that address our challenges and improve our lives. I ask for your support in doing this.

If we make the right choices, our future is bright. We are in a strong position with a high international standing. We have overcome long odds before with creativity and fortitude. In our darkest days after Separation in 1965, Mr Lee Kuan Yew vowed to Singaporeans, "Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear." And we did it. Together, we built a nation. So, never fear. We can build an even better Singapore for all Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, I support the amended Motion [Applause].

It has been an intense five days. Seldom have I seen Members on both sides of the House rise and speak with so much intensity and passion. We have heard more than

Page: 103

Members share their views, concerns and suggestions on this important issue of population. This is the longest debate, in my memory, that we have had on any single Motion in Parliament. And so, it should be. It reflects the importance that Members have placed on the far-reaching implications of our population challenge, as well as Members' concerns about resolving the current issues facing Singaporeans today.

At the core of the challenge we are facing is the ageing population. This is happening at a scale and a speed that is unprecedented for us. Nine hundred thousand Singaporeans, or one-quarter of our population, will have crossed the 65-year-old mark by 2030. It is going to be a one-time occurrence in our population profile in Singapore. After that, the bulge would have moved through. The senior population in Singapore will stabilise and, eventually, it will decline. But how do we deal with this very large and very fast ageing of our population in Singapore over the next 18 years and still maintain our stability, our economy, our drive and, most importantly, our ability to support these seniors, and make sure they have the life, the dignity that they deserve because they built Singapore?

Our population challenge is complex and multi-faceted, with many inter-linked parts – raising birth rates, taking care of our ageing population, creating good jobs for Singaporeans, ensuring a good living environment. In drawing up the White Paper, we sought to balance many demands and constraints. There are no simple or easy solutions. And we need to find the right balance.

Mdm Speaker, over the past year, as we worked on the White Paper, my mind could not help returning to my daily experiences as a Member of Parliament in Pasir Ris. I have been in this House for 20 years, about 16 of them representing Pasir Ris.

Pasir Ris was a young town then. There were babies and prams wherever one went. We faced the challenges that new towns today face – childcare and kindergarten places close to home; enrolment in Primary schools of choice. About six months ago, I met a young lady now in Secondary school. She happily showed me a photo of her receiving a prize from me when she was a baby at a baby show. We both looked younger then.

Now, just 16 years later, whenever I visit a food centre, market or neighbourhood centre, or attend a block party or some other event, I meet at least one or two senior residents, some of whom I have known for some years, on wheelchairs. I feel a little sad for them but, on the other hand, I am also

Page: 104

heartened because they are out and about, able to take part in community life and keeping active with their neighbours and their friends. Our lift upgrading and barrier-free access programmes allow them to come out, on their own, or with their families or caregivers, instead of being confined at home.

I visited a resident last week – I have known him for a long time – just two days before this debate started. Let us call him Mr B. Mr B has had a difficult year. He lost one leg. But he has got a positive attitude to life. He is happy because he is right sizing from his current flat to a new studio apartment in familiar surroundings in Pasir Ris, which will be completed later this year. He will live in a smaller flat which he can manage himself and has unlocked some money from the sale of his larger flat for his living expenses. And he continues to volunteer regularly, taking a wheelchair-friendly public bus to the church in Pasir Ris.

Two weeks ago, I visited the Apex Harmony Lodge for dementia patients in Pasir Ris, of which I am the patron. Mr G is one of the 198 residents there. There are another 22 on day care. For the 198 residents, there are 110 staff. Eighty per cent are nursing and support care staff, and of these, 80% are non-Singaporeans. The other 20% are administrative staff or support staff, and all are Singaporeans. Apex Harmony Lodge is the only facility in Singapore, admitting only people with dementia. The nurses, who are very professional, in consultation with family members and allied health staff draw up an individualised care plan.

The Lodge is now at full capacity. It has plans for extension, to at least double its capacity. It will need more staff, both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, to take care of the residents.

Mr G draws wonderful pen-sketches. He gave me this beautiful sketch of the Lodge [hon Members were shown a slide], but as he gave it to me, he seemed very attached to it. So, I wrote a few words to wish him good health, and asked him to keep the sketch safely for me.

Mdm Speaker, my constituency is still considered young. It was developed only about 20 to 25 years ago. I think of the seniors and how we can take care of them, and help them stay active, healthy and engaged in the community.

I think of the young lady, now in Secondary school, who has her life ahead of her. We need to make preparations now, so that she can have an exciting and a fulfilling career in Singapore. So that she can be near her parents to be there for them in the same way as they are there for her today. So that she can have

Page: 105

the support she needs to help care for them, and her own family and children too. So, Mdm Speaker, it is with families and Singaporeans like this, all over Singapore, in mind that we debate this key population issue.

Members will agree with me that it has been a good, passionate debate. As Members debated the roadmap for the future, they also raised important concerns, reflecting the views of Singaporeans and the issues they face today.

The Marriage and Parenthood Package was widely welcomed by Singaporeans and Members of this House. We will continue to study and consider all good ideas.

Members from both sides of the House asked for greater clarity and assurances that the population range for 2030 was not a population target but was only to be used for infrastructure planning. They called upon the Government to give priority to addressing the current bottlenecks, implement the long-term infrastructure plans, and ensure that the benefits flow to Singaporeans. They also asked Government to carry out a medium-term review of our population policies and assumptions.

These are all important and useful points, which reflect the views and interests of our colleagues in this House, and of Singaporeans. Therefore, I welcome their addition, via an amendment from Mr Liang Eng Hwa, to the Motion. These additional points in the amendment indeed are in line with the intent of the Government, and help to clarify this intent, and reassure Singaporeans that discussion and conversation have to continue.

Mdm Speaker, we have spent the last five days discussing this issue of population in Parliament. In a moment, we will vote on the amended Motion. Madam, I had asked the Clerk to distribute copies of the amended Motion for Members during tea break and invite Members to refer to this sheet now.

Mdm Speaker, what are we voting on today? First, the Motion as amended: "supports maintaining 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."

Madam, Members from both sides of the House agree to this in principle. We agree on the number of PRs to be taken in per year, at a rate significantly lower since 2009. We differ on the exact number of new citizens we should take

Page: 106

in each year but we agree to this in principle.

Second, the Motion calls on the Government to attend to the current concerns of Singaporeans to:

(a) place priority on resolving current strains on the infrastructure, particularly in transport; and

(b) ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans.

And I think we all agree with this and the Government pledges to do so.

Third, up to 2020, the White Paper is proposing a major shift – a significant slowdown in our rate of workforce and population growth, and GDP growth, compared to the path that we were on. This is a carefully balanced path between two extremes – neither carrying on with the rapid growth rates of the last three decades which would take us beyond our capacity; nor having a freeze which would stall the economy, and be harmful to Singaporeans. Hence, supporting the Motion is supporting making this significant shift, but in a balanced way, and signals that we should not take either extreme.

Fourth, beyond 2020, we are not deciding now on any specific population size. The amended Motion from Mr Liang makes clear that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target. The Motion calls for the Government to plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand. Major infrastructure takes years to build, and once built will be there for decades. Preparing the infrastructure ahead of time and ahead of demand provides Singaporeans with more options in the future. Under-providing will give Singaporeans less flexibility in the future, and risks facing the sort of bottlenecks that we are facing today when plans are not properly aligned and meshed.

Fifth, finally, and most important, the Motion calls on the Government to 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. The Prime Minister has said that we should carry out this review before 2020.

Page: 107

Hence, voting for the Motion does not mean that the conversation stops. The conversation continues. And so it should. The conversation on population did not start this week in this House. It started slowly but earnestly, about a year ago, when we started consulting Singaporeans of all ages, from different walks of life. Similarly, the conversation does not end in this room today. The end of this debate does not mark the end of the discussion on this very important issue. The discussion should and must continue.

The White Paper and this debate have focused the minds of Singaporeans on this important subject, painted out the challenges we face with an ageing and shrinking population, the scenarios, the consequences and possible pathways. It is a subject which affects all of us.

I would thus like to call on Members to support the amended Motion before you. For those who would like to see more discussion and exploration of possibilities, there is no need now to come to a final decision, yes or no. I invite you to keep an open mind as the conversation on the future pathway continues. We must continually review our approach and adapt our strategies depending on Singaporeans' changing social and economic needs, and how our domestic and external circumstances change, while always putting the interests of Singaporeans at the heart of everything that we do. The amended Motion calls for a medium-term review and for the discussion to continue.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank all Members for sharing their insights, and debating this Motion with such energy and passion, with our focus on building a better future for Singaporeans. With leaders, business and people working together in a concerted manner, I am confident that we can truly have a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore for many more generations of Singaporeans to come. Let us all come together to build a better life, a better home and a better future for Singaporeans, now and in the future.

Mdm Speaker, may I take the opportunity to wish all those celebrating the new year, a very happy Chinese New Year and a bountiful year ahead for everyone. Mdm Speaker, I support the amended Motion [Applause].

We have now come to the conclusion of the debate, and I shall put the necessary Questions to the House for a decision. There are two amendments proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa as indicated in the Order Paper.

I shall put the Questions on the amendments in the order in which they relate to the text of the original Motion. The first amendment by Mr Liang Eng

Page: 108

Hwa is that, in line 3, to leave out the words "population policy".

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out", put and agreed to.

I now come to the second amendment by Mr Liang Eng Hwa. The second amendment is that the words proposed by the Member be added at the end of the Motion.

Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be added", put and agreed to.