A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore

So, we will manage the manpower downstream, and we need to strike a balance. I do believe that as we restructure, as we evolve and build a better future for ourselves and our people, we will have a Singapore that we can be proud of. A place where our Singaporeans can find jobs, good jobs, opportunities to pursue different avenues for them to achieve their own dreams. And they can find the fulfilment here.

I would want to end by saying this: The present infrastructural crunch, we will ease it. We will deal with it decisively. The number of initiatives has been informed. We will take bold initiatives to ensure this. And at the same time, I think we recognise that we will slow down the economy to a sustainable rate. But we need to tread carefully.

We will manage our space better and I think we can build something special here. Our heart and soul remain important. It is not just the material. I think this is something recognised by all Singaporeans and all Members here in this House. We need to nurture it – activities in school, community outreach, the arts, heritage, the environment. These things cannot be neglected even as we discuss the practical aspects of governance; the practical aspects that impact our future. The very heart and soul of our nation rest on some of these things, our values.

This is where it is important to address this idea of the Singaporean Core. My colleagues from the Workers' Party define this Singaporean core with a very catchy, Singaporean Singapore slogan. It is meaningful, but the sub-text is actually very important. I quote Ms Sylvia Lim, "A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who grew up in and with Singapore. Therefore, the policy of topping up shortfalls in our total fertility rate with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean core is flawed." At various

Page: 121

junctures, they talk of dilution of our citizen numbers – home-grown, home-born Singaporeans – with the numbers that are coming in forming new citizens, and this idea is repeated.

I guess this is one way of looking at it and I suppose it resonates with some Singaporeans – which is why it was raised. I honestly do not know how far back we should go before Singaporeans count? Even here in this House, some of us are not born in Singapore. Ms Irene Ng was not born in Singapore. Mr Chen Show Mao was not born in Singapore. Does it make them second-class citizens?

We have many Singaporeans who are not born here. They may not have grown up here, but they have decided to make this place home, and serve and contribute to our society. Should this be what defines us as Singaporeans? And this is an important question. Are these values we as Singaporeans subscribe to?

I do not subscribe to these values and outlook to what it means to be a Singaporean. I believe we Singaporeans are an open hearted and kind people. We are generous. We are warm. We embrace those that are around us. Those who leave here, leave as friends and will look out for us because they remember the friendships forged. They were touched by the kindness of our people when they were here in various capacities. Some will choose to live here because they see that this is something they want to be part of.

As leaders, we cannot be just echo chambers. We lead and set the tone and inspire ourselves and our people to be Singaporeans with a heart. When you ask who do we defend? This is my response. I defend my family who remains here. I defend my loved ones and friends who remain here, and all Singaporeans who are here. The percentage does not make a difference, my duties and responsibilities do not change.

Taking too nationalistic an approach can and sometimes does bring out the worse in us. We are much more than this as a people. So, let me end with this quote:

"As a Singaporean I have no difficulty, in a single lifetime, forgetting in turn that I was a Ceylon Tamil and Sri Lankan though I was born there. I had no difficulty forgetting that I was a British subject, or the formative years as a Malayan and where most of my kith and kin still are. That I and my colleagues fought bitterly the communists and communalists on both sides of the Causeway to be a Malaysian and am now totally happy that I will die, I hope, a

Page: 122

satisfied Singaporean. Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice ... Being a Singaporean means forgetting all that stands in the way of one's Singaporean commitment, but without in any way diminishing one's curiosity about the triumphs and failures of one's distant ancestors."

This was written by the person who coined the term "Singaporean Singapore", S Rajaratnam.

Friends, we talk about the Singaporean Core. I think this is what it means, and this is the core of being a Singaporean. For all our imperfections, we are a remarkable little nation. We have defied the odds, and have built up something special that we all care for. For all of us here, this is our home and this is where our heart is. I for one do not intend for us to be a footnote in the annals of history. I have hope that our next chapter will see us all grow old together, here, as one people, and to be young again, as one nation. With that, Mdm Speaker, I would like to support the amended Motion. [Applause.]

Thank you, Madam. First of all, I am afraid the Acting Minister has quoted my speech out of context. It was in the context of, at that point in time, the effect of foreign workers allocation and a different method of allocating foreign manpower. It is different from the issue overall of foreign workforce. I have said many times in this House that we need to control the foreign worker inflow. I have even questioned the foreign worker's levy. I have also said that the foreign worker has depressed Singaporean wages and also taken away Singaporean jobs. I do not see any contradiction. Fairness is an important quality of being a Minister and I expect him to look at, in totality, what I have said in Parliament, and not just quote part of it and out of context, and try to paint a picture of me as though I am self-contradictory. It is not a contradiction.

Madam, the Minister also referred to the Workers' Party's proposal and also in particular about growing the residential population. After a long speech, I thought the message from the Minister was that nothing can be done. And if something needs to be done, can the Workers' Party do something about it? He mentioned about a programme he has: asking seniors to go back to workforce

Page: 123

and all that; and whether or not we have any other programmes.

I would advise that, perhaps, the Minister wants to go back and look at his programmes. If he thinks that it is not effective, set a hard target, the numbers and the KPIs. And if he thinks that his Ministry cannot do very much, and wants the Workers' Party to do more, perhaps he can consider putting his Ministry's resources under the Workers' Party?

Mdm Speaker, two quick responses. With regard to what Mr Low Thia Khiang has said, it is a matter of record. My concern was really the different positions taken. The whole debate about DRC (Dependency Ratio Ceiling) was important, because it is about freeing up space when we have more foreign workers coming in. At that stage, Mr Low's concern, and I think a fair concern, was about our SMEs and businesses being affected. But that actually runs contrary to the overall trend of trying to constrain and move our foreign workforce downwards.

Secondly, with regard to the Labour Force Participation Rate, not at all. I am fully committed in terms of raising Labour Force Participation Rate. I would urge Mr Low and his colleagues to read some of the initiatives, and these initiatives are not just on paper. We do have a very high Labour Force Participation Rate and it is increasing and it is improving. What I am highlighting is: there are also challenges and we continue to emphasise and we hope that Labour Force Participation Rate can continue to improve, but that is different from saying that there are no more ideas. We will continue to work on that and I think that is important.

If there are other ideas, we welcome them. I think that is an important point of clarification because what I have been asking is, I am curious as to some of the very practical suggestions. Because we have talked about TFR being half-hearted, apart from eight-hour workday, what are the other things? A lot of things are being put in place. So, we would also appreciate it if there are concrete ideas accompanying some of these broader statements.

Page: 124