A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore

Mdm Speaker, like Members before me who have spoken, I struggled through the various trade-offs and the dilemmas that were presented in the White Paper. As a Member serving in a ward that also experienced under-provision of transport infrastructure, bus services and other amenities, I find it difficult to contemplate that we need even more headcount to stay viable as a country and it will bring a higher quality of life for our fellow citizens. This is what my heart tells me. Can we really take in more? That is the question.

But let us take a step back and use this White Paper to search the truth. Let the head and logic do the work first. Thereafter, we can hear what our heart tells us and see how we could adjust.

Page: 46

What we are debating in this House is a long-term challenge that has real implications on the lives and well-being of Singaporeans when they grow old and younger Singaporeans who would shoulder the responsibilities of taking care of our fast-growing number of ageing citizens.

To start with, we are faced with hard choices and we know all too well that there are limited options available.

So, let us go through the decision tree. The first decision is, given the grim ageing demographic, should we have a policy of zero population growth? We are not even talking about negative, I think that is out. But let us say zero population growth. What would happen if we have zero population growth? The truth is, come 2020, the number of working citizens will decline because the number of citizens retiring will be more than those entering the workforce. It will have direct contraction effects on the economy. It would also mean a heavier economic load to the smaller base of working citizens who have to support a much bigger base of retired citizens. Inevitably, taxes will need to be raise not just because of the smaller base of tax-paying citizens but also the expected higher social spending for a larger base of retired citizens.

Even at a slower workforce growth rate of 1% to 2%, as projected in the White Paper, the Singapore Business Federation is already warning of devastating consequences for many companies; mostly SMEs. Companies will not have the headcount to grow their business. Given our circumstances as a small island state with no natural resources, if we are faced with a prolonged stagnant economy, would we still have the competitive ability to earn the foreign exchange to pay for what we import? Our food, energy, raw materials, basic needs are almost all imported and paid for by the foreign exchange that we earn because of our competitive economy. Consumers of the world do not owe us a living and we have to earn our keep. So, it is also about economic security.

With a low fertility rate, ageing population and shrinking labour force all coming together, we are, indeed, facing a demographic time bomb and it had already started ticking away last year when the first batch of the Baby-Boomer generation entered 62 years of age.

So, I think most Singaporeans would agree that zero population growth is not tenable at this stage of our development. Not at a time when a mega Baby-Boomer generation is entering into retirement in the next 20 years.

Page: 47

If population growth rate cannot be zero, then the next decision would be – what should be the acceptable rate of growth: 1%, 2%, 3% or more?

In the last 30 years, the country's population grew at a rate of 2.5% per year. I do not think we can continue to grow at that rate. Neither should we grow at zero percent. Indeed, either extreme of 0% or 2.5% growth rate would be considered as worst-case scenario. So, the answer is probably somewhere in between.

The White Paper projected that we grow at a lower rate of between 1.1% and 1.6% over the next 18 years; about half the growth rate of the last 30 years. At that population growth, our projected total workforce growth would be between 1% and 2% from now till 2020 and 1% from 2020 onwards; a rate of growth that worries the businesses a great deal. This is much lower than the 3.3% per year in the last three decades. So, it is a major squeeze to the businesses, but we have to face up to the constraints.

So, from a pace of growth standpoint, the 1.1% to 1.6% range appears logical. Well, some would argue we can have a bit more or less but it does not change the stark trade-offs that we are confronted with.

Like what Deputy Prime Minister Teo said yesterday, we are talking about major shifts that will significantly slow down the growth rate of our workforce and population. It will definitely have significant ramifications on our economy, including employment and inflation.

Even with a slower rate of growth, it would still mean that more foreigners will be entering the workforce in Singapore and more foreigners will reside in Singapore; a touchy point for many Singaporeans. The key concerns are: competition, crowdedness and a weakened Singaporean Core. These are all valid concerns.

The key thrust of strengthening our Singaporean Core in the workforce is to help enhance the employability of Singaporeans and prepare Singaporeans for the competition. We need to help our citizens better maximise our so-called "home ground advantage" and benefit from the job opportunities available and get higher salaries. What would work against the strengthening of the Singaporean Core is where foreigners are seen to be taking up jobs that Singaporeans can do. There are clearly still many examples of that in some sectors. We need employers to be conscious of that.

Page: 48

Notwithstanding the foreigners in our workforce, Singapore still enjoyed one of the lowest citizen unemployment rates in the world at about 2%. And it is not by accident. Our bustling economy is, of course, one key factor. But the optimal combination of local workforce complemented by foreign labour is also another key competitive edge of our companies here. It helps us earn a slice of the global economic pie.

Having a foreign workforce does help to buffer the citizen workforce against the economic cycles. In a downturn or an economic slowdown, we can always tighten the work permits and Employment Passes to trim down the foreign workforce. It has happened during the downturn in 2001 and 2009 where foreign labour was significantly reduced then. I am sure the Government will again use this tool in similar circumstances so that citizen unemployment will be kept to the minimal. There is no point keeping the foreigners here if there are no jobs and also no jobs for Singaporeans. So, that would be a good buffer for us.

Above all, we must never abandon those that are left behind from the competition. In an increasingly competitive landscape, we need an even stronger safety net so that no one is left behind. It is every such effort that reinforces our social compact so that Singaporeans form the core and heart of our nation.

Madam, we need to invest big to create space and capacity to cope with higher population and to sustain a high quality of living environment. We also need a long-term economic strategy that can continue to create good and fulfilling jobs for our citizens, bearing in mind, come 2020, we will have at least 16,000 Singaporeans per year graduating from local Universities and many others from the Polytechnics and ITEs. We need to keep creating good employment, good jobs, for these graduates every year. No mean feat. Economic growth sustains our financial ability to pay for the higher social spending so that our retired citizens can age with dignity and security. Too low an economic growth will change that equation and things may not balance out.

This is exactly what this Population White Paper and Land Use Plan are all about. And I agree with Deputy Prime Minister Teo that it is about doing the balancing acts. And that every issue is interlinked with one another and so you cannot just take one piece and say we should do more or do less. Every piece is linked.

On the land space to accommodate the upper end of the projected population number; we have to have trust and faith in our planners'

Page: 49

professional judgement that the island can accommodate the top end number comfortably and our city will still be liveable even with the top end being met. I think that is important. Even at the upper end of the population limit, our population density is still lower than many of the cities in the world. However, like Members before me, I am more concerned about the high proportion of foreigners relative to citizens residing in this island come 2030. I cannot imagine what kind of Singapore it would be like where we have a high proportion of foreigners, as high as 45%.

Due credit must be given to the White Paper for pointing this out so that we know this possible scenario. And we still have time to prevent this from happening. Besides, stronger incentives to improve citizen fertility rate and increase productivity to reduce dependence on foreign workers, we should test-bed new business ideas, models and technology where foreigners can work for us and yet remain in their home country, for example, by way of off-shoring. Given our domestic constraints and our small domestic markets, we need even more local-bred companies who are deeply rooted in Singapore but yet derive more of their revenue from overseas through their regionalisation efforts. A GNP output concept would be a more meaningful indicator than the GDP for Singapore going forward.

In fact, this possible threat with regard to Singaporean Core being weakened can be a rallying call or "call-to-action" where we mobilise our citizens to work together to prevent this dreadful scenario from happening. The key is to prevent the citizen population from shrinking. We can still act now.

I agree with the Government's approach to be open and truthful with our people on the long-term challenges that we face and sharing honestly with our people what are the tough choices to tackle the challenges. The White Paper has generated strong reactions but I rather that the Government be honest about what it intends to do rather than keep this as classified information, and that our stakeholders would not need to second guess what are the scenarios that the Government envisages and what the Government's plans will be.

But I would urge the Government to consider the feedback and suggestions thrown up in this debate as we seek deeper understanding and consensus on this complex challenge. Where possible, the Government should be open to making changes and adjustments to our plans. That way, there will be a stronger sense of ownership to this national challenge where we can all work

Page: 50

together to overcome.

Hence, I suggest we should carry on medium-term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changes in domestic and external circumstances. This has to be ongoing.

Madam, the next part of my speech will focus on the short-term issues that are related to the White Paper.

Without demonstrating that we can resolve our current bottlenecks and the under-provision of infrastructures and services, the long-term plan, however exciting it may look, will be less meaningful to Singaporeans.

For Singaporeans caught in daily congestions on the roads and the crowded public transport, it is difficult to comprehend that we need even more people on this island and that all these will get better in the long term. The housing imbalances of the last three to four years have caused lots of angst to would-be home buyers. High COVs, long waiting time for BTOs and the fear of being caught behind the curve as property prices rise, are real problems and what many Singaporeans live through. Lack of affordable eateries has led to higher stall rentals and, as a result, higher food prices.

The current strains on our infrastructure, particularly in transport, has somewhat dented public confidence in the Government's ability to deliver good and reliable public infrastructures and services. We need to restore this confidence. The Government has a long track record of delivering excellent public infrastructure in the past and I am confident we can solve these bottlenecks. It requires the resolve, cutting the red tape and, of course, the resources and the necessary funding.

The Government needs to act decisively and swiftly, particularly in the area of transport. We need to speed up the bus capacity enhancement programme. Buses are still very crowded during the peak hours and chaotic scenes at bus stops are daily occurrences. Feeder services are inadequate and prolong the overall commuting time. While there are new MRT lines being constructed and planned, it will take many more years before they are ready. In the interim years, we need a major step-up in the provision of buses. The first-round implementation of BSEP, while good, hardly moves the needle too much and we need a stronger dose to see real meaningful improvements. If need be, the Government must be prepared to upsize the $1.1 billion BSEP if it is inadequate.

Page: 51

If the current two public transport operators are incapable of increasing the bus fleets fast enough, we should look to other private operators to do the job.

In 2010, I remember seeing how the Resort World Singapore was able to step up their free shuttle bus services from the heartlands to the IR, all in a matter of a few months, with their services running as late as 2.30 am. In fact, they were looking to expand their free shuttle bus services to more HDB towns until I raised this concern in Parliament and then the service was halted. Why is it that the IR operator could build up such an extensive bus service network so fast while our two experienced public transport operators are unable to cope and deliver? I am glad I pushed for the stoppage then as it not only made it less convenient for heartlanders to gamble at the casino but it also freed up bus drivers that would otherwise be driving for the IR operator. If the existing two PTOs do not have the bandwidth to expand bus service capacity under BSEP, we should look to other private operators to do the job.

We also need to urgently solve the road transport bottlenecks. One of the frustrations when dealing with agencies like LTA and HDB is that they seem to have their plates full and they have limited bandwidth left to attend to and resolve the local bottleneck issues. Even if a solution has been identified, I get the sense that they are either having problems getting the necessary funding or the funding will take a long while to come. These have to change if we are serious about building a high quality living environment for a growing population.

If we have not already noticed that LTA and HDB are already up to their brim, I think we have to give them the full support so that they can do the job. In all fairness, they are all overwhelmed by the numerous requests, piling up from different quarters all over the island. At the same time, they also have their mega projects to oversee. So, clearly, the frontline agencies like LTA and HDB need to be given more resources and more funding if they are to quickly solve our current bottlenecks and ease the strains. In particular, greater approving authority should be delegated to lower levels so as to speed up the implementation of improvement projects, and more resources and funding are set aside to specifically solve local infrastructure problems.

Madam, besides transport, another major concern is the lack of affordable eateries. I am glad the Government has resumed building hawker centres, but the timeline to build 10 hawker centres in 10 years is far from aggressive and not aspiring enough. Hawker centres serve many purposes and, among others, help keep cost of living low. Given the expected population build-up, I would urge the Government to really build more and build faster. Instead of 10 hawker

Page: 52

centres in 10 years, we should be looking at building 20 hawker centres in five years. And hawker centres are not major capital expenditure items and does not take up significant construction capacity.

Madam, we need to agree on a roadmap to address the challenges of an ageing population and to articulate our land use plan to support future population projections. It is a matter of survivability for a small island state. I fully agree with Deputy Prime Minister Teo that it is more responsible to surface the issues and plan ahead while we are able to do so. It is a difficult choice but we must do what is right for Singaporeans of today and tomorrow. Hence, I support the Motion in the name of Deputy Prime Minister Teo.

However, reflecting the concerns raised by Singaporeans since the release of the White Paper, I propose amending the Motion to further reinforce the point that the House supports maintaining a strong Singaporean Core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children.

I also propose adding clarity to the Motion by recognising that population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructural planning and not a population target, a point that was further made clear by Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his speech yesterday.

Lastly, Madam, my belief is that we will not get buy-in from Singaporeans on our long-term plans if we do not demonstrate and commit to Singaporeans that we are serious in resolving our current bottlenecks and that, going forward, we will plan and invest in infrastructure ahead of demand.

We also need to assure Singaporeans that our population policies are meant to benefit our citizens and that we will carry out medium term reviews on our population policies to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. So, Madam, with your consent, I would like to propose an amendment to the Motion.

Can I have a copy of the amendment, Mr Liang?

Yes. [A copy of the amendment was handed to Mdm Speaker.]

Page: 53

The amendment is in order. Are copies made available to Members of the House?

Yes, Madam, I do have copies. May I request the Clerk to distribute the proposed amendment to the Members? [Copies of the amendment were distributed to hon Members.]

Mr Liang, please move your amendment.

Madam, I beg to move,

Amendment No 1, in line 3, to delete the words "population policy".

Amendment No 2, at the end, to add "projections; and 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; and recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to:

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

(b) plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand;

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

(d) 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 hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed two amendments. The first amendment is that in line 3, to leave out the words "population policy". The second amendment is that the words proposed by the Member be added at the end of the Motion. The copies are before Members. It may be convenient that the debate on the Original Motion and on any other amendments moved by Members be proceeded with simultaneously as a debate on a single Question. Do I have hon Members' agreement on this?

Page: 54

Hon Members indicated assent.

The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Mr Zainudin Nordin.

Mdm Speaker, the Government's White Paper on Population has drawn great public attention, and understandably so, because it outlines what Singapore will be like, and what Singaporeans can look forward to by 2030. I must congratulate the Government for a very comprehensive document, and the bold planning parameters and thoughtful policies that are outlined in the Paper.

As is often the case, the headline numbers are what have drawn public discussion. The biggest of these, of course, is the planning parameter of raising our population to 6.9 million, with 55% of these being Singaporeans. If this scenario comes to pass, and I say again, if this scenario comes to pass, we are talking about adding about 100,000 residents every year, until 2030. Hundred thousand more residents mean that much more demand for housing, transport, medical services, and other strains on our infrastructure. Given the experiences of Singaporeans following recent increases in our population, of overcrowding in our public transport and other public amenities, I was not surprised that many voiced concern, and some even voiced disbelief, over a larger population.

But I believe the Government is doing the right thing by making these planning parameters public as early as possible, so that Singaporeans can give their feedback, and be co-authors of what they want future Singapore to be, for them and for their children. I believe it would be worthwhile for the Government to take greater steps to explain the difference between planning parameters and specific targets or goals, so that Singaporeans can understand that plans are for discussion, and nothing is a foregone conclusion because we know nobody knows what is going to happen in the future.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to touch on three areas that my residents are concerned about. First, even as we plan to grow our population, and to ensure that majority of Singaporeans would hold white collar jobs as predicted in the future, we must assure ourselves that Singaporeans will have the opportunities to be the core workforce in every industry, and in every company. While we appreciate foreign investment, and the technical and managerial expertise this brings, we must strive to ensure that in addition to white collar work,

Page: 55

Singaporeans must be allowed to, over time, systematically take over core technical and management functions previously held by foreigners. The Government could put in place requirements to not only transfer technical knowledge, but also administrative and managerial functions, personal networks and other soft skills, so that even foreign companies in Singapore can be run by highly qualified and competent Singaporeans. With Singaporeans holding more senior positions, we would be able to see a narrowing of income gaps between high-income foreigners and locals, which is one stress point that makes foreigners less welcome here that we often hear about.

Secondly, in order for this to happen, we must ask ourselves whether our education and training systems are producing the right type of talent for the future. There is no doubt that our local institutions are ranked very highly for their academic quality, but we must be equally assured that we are equipping our future workforce with not only the right knowledge and skills, but also the right attitudes and worldviews to take on these higher level roles. Are we confident that our education system is forward looking enough to anticipate what knowledge and skills will be needed in 2030? It is really a challenging proposition. Let me just give an example. Someone who is 10 years old today, and in Primary school, will probably be a new worker in 2030 at the age of 27.

And yet, at the same time, someone who is 40 years old today would still be looking forward to be gainfully employed in 2030, at the age of 57. So, we will have to look into the future to account for the needs of the economy and reverse engineer education programmes for our young and for our current workforce. And if we are to expect our 40-year-olds to be relevant in the future, we will also have to train and have re-education programmes, so that he is not redundant in the future Singapore. It would be worthwhile to take a hard look at our education and training systems to see if they allow enough flexibility to take into account individual preferences, and yet are sufficiently geared towards the needs of the economy.

Mdm Speaker, as you probably also know, many residents are unsure if they can keep up with the demands of the future Singapore. Many are concerned about their low skills, and yet may not have the wherewithal to upgrade – for many of these reasons. So, even as we plan and prepare for the future, we must take care of the present, and assuage the fears of many ordinary Singaporeans who are concerned about their livelihoods today.

Finally, I want to touch on our policy responses. I believe it has become amply clear that an incremental or linear approach to policies can no longer work. So, we cannot simply say that an increase in our population, let us say,

Page: 56

for example, by 30% requires an increase in accompanying infrastructure, for example, MRT lines, by 30%. It is clear now that in this Paper, our policy makers are beginning to challenge themselves to make quantum improvements in their policy responses, and put Singaporeans at the core of every policy decision. Having good policies alone is not sufficient. It is important to be able to explain these policies and their assumptions, and the attendant constraints to the public, and to leave sufficient room for good suggestions to be incorporated. No longer does wisdom lie solely among our policymakers, but it also lies amongst Singaporeans, who are well-educated, who have travelled widely, and who have excellent suggestions, and these can also help to shape our policies in the future. And not least, we must make every effort to hear from the common man, who would feel the brunt of our policies, and ask them whether their lives are improved or made worse by our policies.

Mdm Speaker, many in this House may not want to hear this, but we are still some way away from regaining the trust and support of Singaporeans, and we will have to work doubly hard, and maybe triply hard to convince Singaporeans that our decisions are made with the best interest of every Singaporean at heart. Only then can we renew our social compact, and work together to achieve our vision of future Singapore.

Be that as it may, with this White Paper, the new land usage plan and the pro-family measures that had been announced recently show the clear intents of the Government and all aim to directly benefit Singaporeans and Singaporean families. Mdm Speaker, please allow me to continue in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mdm Speaker, Mr Faisal Manap has raised the issue of equal opportunities for the Malays in Singapore in Parliament yesterday. I would like to emphasise that the meritocracy system gives opportunities for all Singaporeans without taking into account their background or race.

If we look at the achievements of the Malay community, I would like to give an example. The Malay/Muslim community in Singapore should be proud to have achieved significant progress in recent years under the meritocracy system. Malay students have achieved good results and the number of "O" and "A" Levels passes has increased. I am also proud because the number of MENDAKI Award recipients has also increased in recent years. Last year, 407 students received this prestigious award for their excellent academic achievements. This is an increase of 3% compared to 2011.

Page: 57

Mdm Speaker, I think it is not fair to give a perception that there is a quota system in the local Universities. Our educational system is based on meritocracy. Every student gets a place in the University because of his grades and performance. Is the Workers' Party saying that our students are not qualified to get places in the University? I would like to know his opinion.

We know the percentage of PMETs in our community has also increased from 7.2% to 27.8%, from 1980 to 2010. More training opportunities are given and we encourage Malay workers to join training and development programmes so that they will be able to upgrade their skills and employability and competitiveness. The employment opportunities in Singapore are given based on merit. We also have a system to have fair and equal working practices.

The Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP) was established to encourage the employers and employees to practise fair working policies. Any complaint on discrimination, whether it is based on gender, sex or race, is given serious concern.

Opportunities given by the SAF, just like other opportunities, are also based on meritocracy.

I believe last March, the Minister for Defence, Dr Ng Eng Hen, had given an assurance to Mr Zaqy on the position of the Malays in the SAF. We have seen many Malays who have been appointed to higher and more challenging positions in the SAF, in line with the higher educational qualifications in our community. There are more full-time Malay SAF personnel holding high posts in the SAF. As long as they are capable and committed, Singaporean Malays will be given the opportunity to serve the country.

In a written answer to Ms Sylvia Lim in November 2011, Dr Ng also said that there is no policy to give an exemption based on religion. Graduates from religious schools of all faiths are required to serve National Service. However, MINDEF received applications from male students of all religions to postpone their national service so that they will continue with their religious education, or to become a teacher or religious leader.

Mr Faisal has also quoted Berita Minggu newspaper about the Suara Musyawarah, which I think is not accurate in context. Just like other Singaporeans with various backgrounds, Malay/Muslims also want equal opportunities in the schools or in their workplace, whether in Singapore or overseas. It is human nature to want equal opportunities. I am very glad when

Page: 58

informed that the some Suara Musyawarah participants feel that there are equal opportunities for Singaporean locals, including the Malay/Muslim community. What is important for them is whether one is prepared to seize the opportunity, and chase their dreams and ambitions.

Mdm Speaker, the Malay/Muslim community has achieved progress as a result of their merits, ability and hard work, not because of any ethnic quota or policies that gave priorities to a certain community. I am saddened by the comment by Mr Faisal that the meritocratic system has no positive effect on our community. Is he suggesting that we should have an affirmative action programme for the community? Is this the stance of the Workers' Party?

(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the Government's White Paper on Population has given cause for optimism – real optimism, but also real concern among Singaporeans. Optimism because many can see the potential dynamic and vibrant Singapore with spanking facilities for Singaporeans, where residents can fulfil their hopes and aspirations, and achieve a better standard of living but, at the same time, they have concerns because some of my residents are asking whether there is enough space and also room for them in the future Singapore. These are residents from all walks of lives who are from low-skilled and low-income families to the high-income earning professionals. They are concerned and these are real concerns.

Let us work together because these legitimate concerns need to be addressed and the Government would be well advised to pay attention to these in its policy formulation. At the end of the day, we are working towards a vision where Singaporeans can enjoy the fruits of Singapore's future. Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to clarify. Please allow me to do it in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  I did not say that whatever I said yesterday is the view of the Workers' Party. But whatever I said is the view of the community, that I, as a Member of Parliament voted in by the community, have to explain. And going back to the questions that I mentioned, it did not only come from me or Ms Sylvia Lim, but also from the hon Member of Parliament from Chua Chu Kang, Mr Zaqy Mohamad. So, what I would like to say is that the equality issues are still lingering in the minds of the Malay community. I hope the Government can do something to provide an explanation, or to find a way to explain, so that these matters can be reduced

Page: 59

within the minds of the Malay/Muslim community of Singapore.

Mr Zainudin Nordin (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mdm Speaker, I would like to say that it is dangerous to give a wrong impression. As Members of Parliament, we will have to explain what is actually happening in the community, to give good examples. If the views given by the Member of Parliament Mr Faisal are the feedback from the community, did he bring it to Parliament so that the Workers' Party can bring about better improvement? Is this his intention? Or is it to give a wrong impression in Parliament?

I would like to remind Members to ask for clarification on what is said by the other Member. It is not to make a speech on any points. Mr Faisal Manap.

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Thank you, Madam. Like I said just now, the matter that I raised yesterday, is not only from me or Ms Sylvia Lim. In fact, the SAF issue, which is very sensitive to the Malay/Muslim community, was raised by Mr Zaqy Mohamad based on feedback he received from the Malay/Muslim community. That is what I said. Thank you.

Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, Members of Parliament, good afternoon. Firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

The White Paper on Population released by the Government last week has reflected the Government's position and resolve regarding the population issue. This has not only generated much concern in all corners of society, but has also sufficiently indicated the Government's resolve to create better employment opportunities for Singaporeans and an even more ideal living environment.

However, many people may not adequately comprehend the White Paper nor its intrinsic meaning. According to my personal understanding, before the Government plans any major reform, the Government would usually issue a White Paper to invite public opinion from Singaporeans to chart an even better policy. In the past few years, the population issue has been brewing, and has given rise to a chain reaction in many areas. Releasing a White Paper on

Page: 60

Population is timely and commendable. Sometimes, problems are not necessarily a bad thing. The presence of problems gives an opportunity for policies to be fine-tuned and amended. In my capacity as a representative of the business community, I would like to raise three points of view on the content of the White Paper on Population.

My first point: Singapore can only solve the social problems created by an ageing population if it were to continue with its stance of being an immigrant nation. Without sufficient numbers of foreigners, Singapore's enterprises would lose their competitiveness because of manpower shortage.

Changes in the population policy have an important impact on the Singaporean workforce. Singapore is a classic example of an export-oriented economy and has always been an immigrant nation. We lack natural resources, and manpower is a key factor of production that can help us to sustain economic growth. In the past decade or so, many economies in Asia have enjoyed high growth. In the midst of this dynamic region, we should remain competitive. Singapore should not go into recession due to our manpower shortage. Japan is a case in point.

Japan has been experiencing an economic slowdown over more than two decades, and is still unable to emerge from the doldrums. One key factor is the population structure. The ageing of Japan's population and its corresponding problems is a signal to us that if we do not plan ahead for the ageing population, the problems we may face in the future could be even more acute.

To be inclusive and innovative are unique characteristics of an immigrant nation. If we do not welcome foreigners, or if foreigners are unable to integrate into our society, our society would suffer, followed by the economy, and eventually everyone would be implicated. Hence, I feel that the Government has chosen to release the White Paper on Population at this time, based on a likely population scenario by the year 2030, is timely as it is the basis of a long-term view to avoid risk, and seeks to improve infrastructure, housing and transport facilities. In the past eight years, we have already experienced the bottlenecks of having our population grow far too quickly. These plans suggested in the White Paper are to redress these problems and avoid their recurrence.

In reality, any change in public policy would affect various sectors of society in different ways. Any gaps in implementation would have a bearing on society, and eventually the Government would have to take the responsibility.

Page: 61

Nothing is ever perfect, and there is no exception in the case of Singapore. We cannot expect to grasp both the fish and the bear's paw at the same time. In the same way, policy implementation has to consider all options. For example, the F&B and retail industries have encountered manpower recruitment difficulties for the past two years. Although everyone has attributed this to the tightening in the foreign worker policy, and that the younger generation of Singaporeans do not wish to work in the services sector, I feel that the difficulties of hiring staff for the F&B industry had begun even before this. When the Government was intent on promoting the tourism industry, and allowed two integrated resorts to be set up in Singapore, the two large investors both expressed being able to individually provide 10,000 employment opportunities for local Singaporeans, making a total of more than 20,000 jobs. As this happened during the financial tsunami, this news brought great relief to all. It was a rosy picture as it attracted foreign investment, created employment opportunities, and brought in tourist revenue. Looking back, there is only a limited supply amongst the local population which can be absorbed into the services sector. After the two integrated resorts started operations, the inevitable outcome was that other SMEs in the services sector started having an acute manpower shortage.

The second point I wish to make is that local enterprises form the core of the Singapore business community, creating not only employment opportunities for Singaporeans but providing services for MNCs. I urge the Government to regard local enterprises as a targeted group to groom and support.

Local enterprises are Singaporean enterprises and are key factors which eventually help to sustain the livelihood of Singaporeans. There are 151,400 local enterprises which employ 70% of the workforce and contribute to 50% of the GDP. MNCs and local enterprises contribute equally to the Singapore economy. However, we should realise that not all Singaporeans are able to excel in the MNC playing field. Thus, although local enterprises cannot match up to MNCs in productivity or economic contribution, they still form the core of the Singapore business community. Even if their pace of growth is slower than that of the MNCs, they are still Singaporean enterprises which help to create employment opportunities for Singaporeans and provide services for the MNCs.

In the future, when the ageing population grows more evident, the impact on local enterprises will be even greater. On the one hand, the number of older workers will increase, and energy levels and productivity would drop; on the other hand, because of the curbs on foreign workers, manpower supply would be diminished. Having said this, I would urge the Government to put greater

Page: 62

emphasis on local enterprises in the future. Singapore practices fair competition. In the economic race, those who are superlative would be richly rewarded. However, the Government's responsibility is to help those who lag behind complete the race.

In the White Paper, the Government would be increasing the ratio of PMETs to provide even better employment opportunities for Singaporeans. By 2030, two out of every three Singaporeans would be professionals, managers, executives and technical workers. As I view this idyllic blueprint, I also begin to worry. If our local enterprises cannot provide enough PMET jobs, do the white-collar jobs that require two out of three Singaporeans need to fall back on foreign investors to provide? If SMEs provide employment opportunities that do not fall under the PMET category, then would the SMEs' labour shortage problem become even more critical?

My third point is this: I hope that going forward, when the Government intends to implement a policy, it should use a more consolidated approach and increase the coordination efforts among Government agencies. I also hope that Singaporeans would adopt a more gracious attitude towards the Government's restructuring efforts and on the contribution by an immigrant population.

When the fertility rate of Singaporeans started to show signs of decline, the Government expedited its immigration rate in 2005. This was the right move at the time. However, while one Ministry had been increasing the number of immigrants into Singapore, the other Ministries in charge of transport, housing and other areas had not kept pace, and created the problems of over-congestion in the infrastructure.

Clearly, the just-released White Paper on Population has shown that within a short period of eight years since 2005, the population has increased by 1.1 million, and lowered the percentage of Singapore citizens to the current 62%. This percentage is likely to continue to plummet. This accelerated growth of immigrants and the problems of cultural assimilation has created social conflicts. The first illegal strike in 26 years is an example of such a social conflict that exists. Both the foreign workers and the companies paid a price.

Social integration is a process that takes time. Regardless of their length of stay in Singapore, new citizens or foreign workers have contributed to Singapore. We live in a globalised world. If Singaporeans can adopt the inclusive approach to foreigners, whether they are here to work, study or be tourists, including the 40% who are foreign spouses, they will have a good

Page: 63

impression and continue to contribute to Singapore even after they leave the country. When we are determining the ratio of Singaporeans in the overall population, apart from quantity we need to consider quality. We need a longer time frame to complete the population composition and to be vigilant on whether the social integration process is a smooth one.

I really appreciate the Government's candid admission of its mistake and admire its vision to review the entire scenario to put together a more long-range plan on population and related areas. I do hope that this plan would be a coordinated one and bring all Ministries and Government agencies together to look at the problem holistically and with requisite support.

To sustain the population and to create a dynamic living environment in Singapore is not only the responsibility of the Government but the responsibility of every Singaporean. While Singapore is still an immigrant society, we must still maintain a Singaporean Core in the population. Those Singaporeans who live here for more than two generations should not only be the largest ratio, but have to make up a significant core that has influence over the immigrant population. There are many grouses on the increasing numbers of foreigners. However, when social cohesion is facing such conflicts, should we not move beyond the complaint mode and move quickly into action, forming families, getting married and having children, so as to ensure that the Singaporean Core of the population does not get eroded because of the ageing population?

Ageing and a decreasing birth rate is the root of our current predicament. This root has also exacerbated the predicament of manpower shortage in the business community, and the Government has no choice but to bring in foreign workers. Following the Marriage and Parenthood incentives rolled out by the Government, I urge all young Singaporeans to respond by having more children. If the Singapore birth rate can increase, it would put less pressure on the problems created by the ageing population, and social problems would also decrease. Thus, the bottom line is to encourage young Singaporeans to have more children!

The feedback I have gathered from businesses over the past few days can be summarised into the following three points. First: the workforce growth of between 1%-2% cannot be further reduced, otherwise enterprises cannot survive. Second: Singapore is at the heart of Asia, a region of rapid growth. The White Paper projects that Singapore's GDP growth will likely be between 2%-3% per year from 2020-2030, and this is also a target that businesses should aim to achieve, however challenging it may be. If we are unable to meet these targets,

Page: 64

Singapore will lose its attractiveness to investors, local enterprises will lose their competitiveness, and the Singapore economy would be badly affected. Third: in order to solve the manpower shortage, businesses are already trying their best to utilise the latent manpower pool, recruiting older workers and getting housewives to re-enter the workforce, but the reality is due to limitations of age and physical strength, they would not be able to take on certain jobs.

There is a Chinese saying that one strand of hair can affect the entire body. The population policy and manpower policy are interrelated, and the manpower policy is directly related to business. Without people, the best opportunities would be lost. Hence, we support the Government's long-term planning for the population problem, to ensure that our population and the workforce could benefit from economic development. I hope that Government would strengthen its consolidation efforts. At the same time, I hope every segment of society would give its frank feedback so that all viewpoints can be considered and lead to the most effective outcome. With this, I support the White Paper on Population.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the Population White Paper debate.

Like many Singaporeans, my first reaction to the White Paper's recommendation of 6.9 million Singaporeans was one of discomfort and anxiety. Singapore is a small country and citizens are still facing real issues on affordability and accessibility. Crowded trains and buses, high property prices, competition at the workplace, cost of living are some issues confronting Singaporeans today. Hence, Singaporeans feel that there is a glaring disconnect between the present realities and the narratives of the White Paper. That drive towards economic growth and sustainability comes at the expense of Singaporeans.

The White Paper has, since its release, caused tension amongst average Singaporeans, the business community and the Government. Whilst tension is being pulled in different directions, we are in fact reining in towards the same destination – towards a better quality of life for Singaporeans and ensuring that our young and old will continue to have a bright future.

Ultimately, the question we are asking: "Is having more people good for Singapore and Singaporeans? How can we ensure that having more gives hope

Page: 65

and improves the quality of life of its core citizens?" To do so, we must remain adaptive to the changes around us. Certainly none of us would wish Singapore to be shrinking, ageing, stuck in protracted economic gloom and losing our economic competitive edge and hope for our young.

I am concerned that by settling for lower economic growth of 2% to 3%, Singapore's long-term vitality may be impacted, not only by a possible stagnation in our standard of living but also a deterioration in our quality of life. But, more importantly, the sapping of our fighting spirit which we may find it hard to recover from. There are suggestions of even lower economic growth and this will push our future even grimmer. As echoed by our hon Member Mr Teo Siong Seng with regard to SMEs, with acute manpower shortages and reduced population size, I think Singaporeans' livelihood will ultimately be affected.

Mdm Speaker, it is an undeniable fact that we have to grow our Singapore Core. We must work on improving our TFR. Gone were the days when in 1966, KK Hospital delivered 39,835 babies, earning it a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for the "largest number of births in a single maternity facility".

Whilst I am heartened that the recent Government's Marriage and Parenthood package may stall the falling total fertility rate and help build the core of Singapore citizens, I am equally cautious that there is a limit to how much impact it will have in the long run. Whilst I want to be optimistic, the current social trends and norms make me doubtful. The global fertility rate makes it unclear the latest package of benefits will bear fruits to achieve an acceptable level of birth rates. With the projected enlarged population size of 6.5 million to 6.9 million, against a backdrop of persistent lower fertility rate, the future population prospect of the Singapore Core appears to be grey.

We have put some of our best brains behind this issue and have thrown in a lot of resources in solving our TFR problem in the past but with very little results to show forth. Lower birth rate is not a phenomenon that affects Singapore alone as many other Western and Asian countries are confronted with similar problems. But for Singapore, the effects of this would be felt more acutely and quickly due to our limited size. How else can we look at boosting and growing the Singapore Core first before growing our new citizens?

In 2011, 9,000 Singaporeans married foreigners. Some immigrant families have sunk their roots in Singapore or immigrants have formed new families with Singapore spouses. We want to start building the Singapore Core with this

Page: 66

group. In this way, there is greater possibility of a foreign immigrant being more rooted and integrated to Singapore through marriage.

It is an interesting fact that the number of additional births this nation needs to replace itself is nearly the same number of babies or pregnancies that we see aborted each year. One solution to boost our low birth rate is to improve our family and social support to unwed mothers or even mothers in families caught in a difficult situation. The Government can do more to encourage and support married women who account for more than 50% of the abortions in Singapore to keep and raise their children.

For unwed mothers and those who for one reason or another cannot raise their child, we must help provide a viable and worthy option of placing the child for adoption. From feedback gathered from VWOs, many couples want to parent a child but are unable to have one of their own.

Mdm Speaker, preserving the Singaporean Core workforce is another important key component of this Population White paper. While the White Paper forecasted that foreigners will make up slightly less than half of Singapore's population by 2030, this is likely not the whole picture.

With about 900,000 baby boomers reaching the age of 65 and exiting the workforce by 2030, I am concerned with the Singaporeans' share of the labour force. Accordingly, I would like to ask the Minister to share with us what would be the Singaporeans' projected share of the labour force by 2030?

Mdm Speaker, more can and should be done to encourage more Singaporeans to join or re-join the labour force. For many of our seniors, they do not suddenly become inactive or less productive at their workplace just because they had reached the prescribed retirement age. In light of this, contrary to the general stereotypical perception that an ageing workforce will be unproductive, I strongly believe that they are a force to be reckoned with.

The retirement age is nothing more than a number that is arbitrarily arrived at. With advancement in medical science and our people living longer, our retirement age had moved from 55 years to now 62 years. As people continue to live longer and enjoy better healthcare, the retirement age is likely to change again. An ageing workforce can be productive and valuable. This should be harnessed to continue their contribution to their companies and the economy.

Page: 67

We need to step up efforts with our Tripartite Partners – to change employers' mindset to accept older workers as an invaluable pool of manpower resource. Employers must embrace a new mindset and treat them not as liability but as a valuable resource equal if not better than any staff. Employers can pay them a fair wage for the value they bring. Employers can also help re-engineer job functions and re-design workplace so that they can create a conducive environment for older workers to continue to contribute effectively.

Many seniors I met have expressed their ability and willingness to continue to work with the same vigour and energy. They desire to work as long as they want and are disappointed that they have to either retire or be re-employed at a lower level, take a pay cut and a reduction of the employer's CPF contribution.

These older workers have a wealth of experience at their disposal and it is a waste to eliminate these experiences through retirement. Older people who are still able to work pass their retirement age should be supported to do so. With a growing greying workforce, I would like our Government to consider the relevance of the prescribed retirement age. Perhaps, it is time we did away with age discrimination at our workplace.

In addition, we can also tap on our latent workforce of stay-at-home mothers and housewives to attract them back to the workforce with flexible work arrangements. We should also provide more opportunities for our youths. Such initiatives of growing our workforce by placing the interest of Singaporeans first can also be adopted to attract overseas Singapore talents back to Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I am in agreement with the White Paper that adapting to our population changes is an important policy matter. The trend of a greying Singapore population would march on regardless of what we throw in its path. We cannot stop preparing for this eventuality.

Madam, while planning future demands necessarily involves some amount of crystal ball gazing, there are some things with probable outcomes that we can plan for. Take for instance, even without the projection of a larger population size of more than 6.5 million in 2030, we can expect a population of 900,000 people aged 65 and above.

There will be greater demand and consumption of healthcare and eldercare products and services. We can zero in on certain types of medical care such as renal care where there is a growing number of people suffering from diabetes

Page: 68

at a regular pace of 11% of our population or more than 400,000 people currently. There are probable outcomes that we can foresee with some definite certainty.

As in healthcare, transportation, housing and cost of living, we are currently constantly chasing after needs and catching up on demands. We would have failed the trust of the people have in us if we do not have the infrastructural needs in place when the needs arise.

While the advantages and necessity of an increasing population will bring economic growth, prosperity and progress for Singapore, we should not side-step the increase in social costs and social tension. The current economic indicators, like GDP, focus on material consumption and do not measure quality-of-life factors. Thus, it is important that the Government strives to strike a balance in managing the population growth and social well-being of Singaporeans.

I agree that it is difficult to have a 20/20 vision in projecting demand and supply against a population over a medium and long term. However, we need the Government's assurance that it can solve today's issues on affordability and accessibility with its current population size for Singaporeans to have a bigger "buy in" on the White Paper.

Our population challenges are complex and multi-faceted. Global scenarios are ever changing and one cannot assume that Singapore will always remain an appealing destination to attract foreign talent or labour. Should big economies like the US and China reinvest in their own countries, their appetite for workers will rise against a shrinking population. What will then be our Government's contingency plan should that happen?

I believe the White Paper on Population is a living document and not a plan cast in stone. I am hence glad that many key Ministers have given assurance that projections of the White Paper are for a "worst case scenario" and a basis to frame its infrastructure planning and investment. Although we have started on our national conversation, it is important that we continue to communicate changes and be upfront with our citizenry on the challenges and changes confronting Singapore. More importantly, Mdm Speaker, Singaporeans should be able to define the agenda of this conversation.

While the visceral response to this White Paper has been rather negative, there is still cause to be optimistic. It does illustrate that most Singaporeans

Page: 69

care and are willing to invest in time and energy to help build a better Singapore. It is thus my wish that this White Paper will serve as a catalyst to help bring forth the aspirations of the Government and Singaporeans for a better Singapore into a reality. For this, Mdm Speaker, I support the Motion.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mdm Speaker, the White Paper states that "to be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core." It also states that "our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities."

Our experience over the past few years suggests that to achieve these objectives would require much planning. Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island's space.

It would be more responsible to plan now for economic growth that would rely on fewer labour inputs, while maintaining a Singapore Core, than to leave the underlying economic and social issues till later.

The Workers' Party proposes that we target to increase our resident workforce growth by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. This includes Singapore citizens and permanent residents. The foreign workforce should be held constant and should increase when we do not achieve our target for growth in the resident labour force. We should focus on growing our Singapore Core of workers over time through efforts to increase our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR).

The Government has recently announced additional incentives for having babies. However, there are structural problems that require longer term solutions, which also affect Singaporeans' decisions to have babies. These include the lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and even a crowded environment and others.

Other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.

How will we grow our resident workforce if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? We need to look into ways to increase our LFPR so that more residents of working age are encouraged to

Page: 70

enter the workforce.

Our current LFPR was 66.6% in 2012. There are 1,063,400 economically inactive residents, 306,100 or 29% due to family responsibilities, 163,800 or 15% are retired. The numbers for the latter will increase due to an ageing workforce. Both represent scope for LFPR increase – getting stay-at-home parents to re-enter or enter the workforce and re-employing elderly workers.

Historically, in the last 10 years from 2003 to 2012, LFPR increased by 3.4% points, or 0.34% points per year. We should focus on fostering LFPR increase in the future.

Under the Workers' Party's proposal, assuming the Government meets its current productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5% to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, and 1.5% to 2.5% GDP growth per year from 2021 to 2030, which is in line with the growth rates of most mature economies.

In this scenario, we are looking at a projected population of 5.3 million to 5.4 million in 2020, and 5.6 million to 5.8 million in 2030. Most importantly, we will not need to take in so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local workforce, which will help us maintain a Singapore Core.

The Workers' Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the Government's suggested path. Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. Instead, we believe we should focus on growth through a Singapore Core. To quote a population expert, immigration is "essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations".

The land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority shows how little room we have to move if the White Paper is endorsed. Under the plan, we will use up significantly more land, with only 4% of land reserve left for future generations. By then, we would be even worse positioned to meet the challenges of a sustainable population policy, we would have less room for error in planning, with a population of 6.9 million on the island. At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution.

(In English): Madam, the Workers' Party is not being facetious when we reversed the wording of the White Paper title to "A Dynamic Population for a

Page: 71

Sustainable Singapore" to describe our alternative approach.

For the White Paper, population growth has to be sustained to feeding through a dynamic economy like so many pieces of coal into the furnace to drive the Orient Express. For the Workers' Party, the people is at the heart and soul of the nation and it is the duty of the Government to provide the conditions for a dynamic people to thrive. A sustained economy is a must, but it is one that serves the dynamic Singaporean workforce. Not the other way round. Our model hinges on resident workforce growth over the long term through the encouragement of local labour force participation, the principal aim of which is to get more Singaporeans to be economically active and independent, and, also, structural reforms to set the total fertility rate on the path of recovery to replacement rate.

For the Workers' Party, a dynamic Singaporean population is a very populous and meaningful of our existence as a nation and economy and existence that should be sustainable. We believe that any labour force growth should take place via a targeted 1% per annum growth in the resident labour force. Over the longer term, we should target to increase the existing labour force participation rate currently at 66.6%, instead of immediately turning towards importing new workers. Over the short term, our resident labour force grows when young citizens or permanent residents enter the labour force. We can target different groups about our existing population that are currently economically inactive and focus on removing the barriers that may be keeping them from entering or even re-entering the labour force. These include resident foreign spouses, stay-at-home parents and also the elderly.

At present, resident foreign spouses who are on Long-Term Visit Pass or Dependant's Pass are not eligible to take up employment. If they want to do so, they need to apply for work passes and be subject to the qualification criteria and are tied to a specific job. Those on the new Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) Scheme do not need to apply for work passes, just a letter of consent for a specific job. These requirements may make it difficult for these pass holders to enter the workforce and indeed an average of 19.5% of work pass applications by these foreign spouses on LTVP+ were unsuccessful. It could be even more difficult for them to meet the requirements if they are hoping to work part-time or on a flexible schedule because they have other responsibilities at home.

As for stay-at-home parents, encouraging them to re-enter the workforce can be in the form of, as many have pointed out, introducing better, more affordable and convenient childcare support. Perhaps, it can be in conjunction

Page: 72

with incentives to employers to have such facilities in the workplace and, as some had mentioned, also in terms of making flexible working arrangements more available. If we look at some of the OECD economies with high TFR, some of them have higher TFR and female labour force participation rates than us.

Clearly, more can be done and the public sector should lead the way. While current Government programmes include initiatives aimed at providing incentives to get economically inactive Singaporeans into the workforce, more can be done. Perhaps, structural changes are needed in our workforce and family-friendly support structures in order to allow a greater proportion beyond the 35% of employers who were offering at least one form of work-life arrangements in 2010.

The last group is the elderly. The Government has been trying to get more elderly people to remain in the workforce for a longer period. Indeed, the employment rate for older workers aged 55 to 64 has increased in recent years. But as we pointed out before in Parliament, these numbers may not tell the story of unemployment. Studies have shown that older Singaporeans are also healthier. We believe that our elderly should be able to work for as long as they want to and are able to, and there is scope for older workers to help grow the resident workforce. The male labour force participation rate for those aged 60 to 64 was 74.6% and 52.6% for those aged 65 to 69. For women, the figures in 2012 were 41.7% and 26.3%. We have age discrimination in hiring and in the workplace, which is a common concern of many Singaporeans.

The Singapore Workforce Report mentioned employers' discrimination, preference for young workers as a major reason why discouraged workers have given up their search for jobs. We should actively investigate if additional administrative or even legislative measures could be taken to remove this impediment through our older workers re-entering or staying in the labour force. In addition, incentives for businesses not only to hire older workers but to redesign jobs, processes and also workplace specifically for older workers should play a larger role in our measures to improve productivity. More targeted measures can be done to help older workers remain as productive as their younger counterparts. When older workers are able to be more productive, employers will be more inclined to retain or hire them. We have been shown charts for growing old age dependency ratio which is the ratio of persons aged 20 to 64 years to persons aged 65 and over. When we look at that, we should also bear in mind that with improvements in health and life expectancy, many of our elders, as many had pointed out, are healthy and able to work longer and indeed they want to, not to mention that many have economic resources of their

Page: 73

own, they are not all economically dependent.

Madam, an ageing population is a triumph of development. We should stop seeing elderly Singaporeans as a drain on our economy and a hindrance to our growth to keep Singapore dynamic. Older Singaporeans have much to offer us and not all of it can be measured in economic terms. In fact, our elderly Singaporeans are essential to maintaining a Singapore Core. Older Singaporeans are custodians of culture and, as some had suggested, can be employed in schools to teach subjects such as social studies in National Education or be encouraged to volunteer to do so. This is also a way of encouraging cross-generational sharing and learning, particularly in a society where family trends are shifting and there may be less opportunities for inter-generational sharing within the family.

The White Paper warns us – a shrinking and ageing population would also mean a smaller less energetic workforce and a less vibrant and innovative economy. Young people would leave for more exciting and growing global cities. We need to ask ourselves the reasons why Singaporeans are leaving. Are they leaving because they feel that Singapore does not offer them the right economic opportunities that they would need to support their ageing parents and other elders if they stayed? While many of them are leaving because they feel that Singapore is becoming overly crowded, costly, competitive and that they would like to live somewhere and bring their children up in a place with more space and greater well-being.

Mr Chen, you may want to round up your speech now. You only have a few seconds.

Yes, Madam. How does increasing the population up to 6.9 million by 2030 allay these concerns and make it less likely for Singaporeans with such concerns to decide to leave the country of their birth and search for a better life for themselves and their children? Madam, the assumptions and conclusions laid out in the White Paper need to be looked into again. I oppose the Motion.

Two questions for the hon Member. The first is I understand the Workers' Party's aim is to reach the population of 5.9 million in 2030 and the focus of this would be growing the domestic workforce participation. But how much immigration does the Workers' Party envision within this 5.9 million number? Is it zero or is it some growth and, if so, how

Page: 74

much, because we do not have the breakdown? That is the first question.

Madam, I would like to ask the hon Member for a couple of clarifications. He made some proposals about increasing labour participation of our elderly. I would like to ask specifically what does he envisage as the average retirement age under his proposals. What proportion of 70-year-olds is he expecting to be within the labour force under his proposals? And how many active workers would this actually add to the economy under their proposals?

Mdm Speaker, as the Acting Minister for Manpower, I was listening very intently to the proposals that Mr Chen was espousing. The first point of clarification, the 6.9 million number is not a target. We have spelt out the boundaries in terms of potential population growth. We are looking at 6.5 million to 6.9 million. The objective – and we totally agree with the Workers' Party – is about the people. It is about the quality of life that can be provided at that stage, not just material but non-material. What are the stepping stones to get there? The economy, the state of the

Page: 75

economy, the level of population growth needed and so on.

I am more interested in their initiatives or the intent of getting there based on the Workers' Party's proposal. Mr Chen went on at length with a lot of things about our elderly which actually I have spoken about and I totally concur with. I think we can age well. I think we should look at encouraging women to come back to the workforce, the economically inactive, older workers who contribute in many meaningful ways. I have said that very often. I am not sure whether the Member has checked the MOM website. We do have many initiatives. We do intend to strengthen them and to continue to build on them.

The Member has described the outcomes. He has described the positives, the values in encouraging older workers and how they contribute. I am actually interested in how he intends to actually bring that about. We have the ADVANTAGE! scheme where we incentivise companies, re-design work arrangements. We have the Special Employment Credit (SEC) which has worked very well. I am not sure if he has read about those initiatives but I am very interested to know the specific programmes he has in mind, obviously because he has been talking about the elderly for a long time. Surely, he has very concrete ideas which I will be very happy to look at and to see whether we can adopt to increase the participation rate along the lines that he has talked about. So, if he could perhaps share some of these suggestions and ideas, we would very much appreciate it.

Madam, I appreciate the Member's explanation. I just have one point of clarification to seek from the hon Member. Is it the Workers' Party's position that its growth forecast is premised on productivity as we have described it in the White Paper, plus 1% growth purely from the Singapore citizen and Permanent Resident components of the workforce in Singapore, with no

Page: 76

additions from foreign workers? Is that the Workers' Party's position?

Zero increase?

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.51 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I see this Population White Paper as the pre-emptive step to read ahead and plan for the better future of tomorrow. It takes a responsible Government to make such a move and act on it for the sustainability of Singapore in the long run in order to benefit Singaporeans.

While I applaud our Government on this move, I have my own reservations in some areas. I know that the outlines of policies will be beneficial in the long run but I am not convinced on the feasibility of the possible population of 6.9 million by 2030. What kind of city-state will it be with our land area of about 700 sq km to be shared by 6.9 million people? How are we going to achieve the quality living environment that we aspire for?

Page: 77

How can we allay this fear of overcrowding in our city-state, especially when such sentiment is already felt with a 5.3 million population?

In the past week, young residents are lamenting that in the future their children will face competition in getting into good colleges and places in the universities. They are also concerned that the availability of affordable housing will be further compromised. The older residents are worried of higher medical costs and strained medical facilities. These are legitimate concerns. Our Government needs to explain in detail and to show the solutions for the future.

I feel that we need to make adjustments to our policy-making that caters to the sophistication of today's populace. Better skills on interpersonal nuances that help connect better with the end users are an important tool. Government needs to convince the majority with its planned policies during the formulation stage and to get acceptance from the communities at large during the implementation stage.

What are the plans in place to better explain and to disseminate our policies across our population? Will these policies be further fine-tuned and taking public's input before implementing them?

Mdm Speaker, for the rest of my speech, I would like to concentrate on the demographic challenges with regard to the ageing population.

It is PAP's style of governance to plan for the long term. Today, I would like to stress on the road maps we must put in place to cushion the challenges ahead regarding care of the elderly. This is essential to provide better care for our future elderly that is ballooning to 900,000 people above 65 years by 2030.

The following are the three areas of my concerns and I would like to suggest solutions for them.

First, the care of the frail elderly. I feel that it will not be sustainable in the long run to have one-to-one care of a frail elderly, especially one who is homebound with a foreign worker as is the norm of today. The family carers of tomorrow for the frail elderly will be getting fewer in view of the smaller-families trend. Moreover, we will need all our young and able individuals to be as economically active as possible in view of our already dwindling working population ratio. But our small land space will be a limiting factor in getting the increasing numbers of foreign workers to care for the growing numbers of frail

Page: 78

elderly; the imported foreign carers will thus be a challenge.

We need to better plan on ways to solve this. I feel that better community living environment is the way to go in order to reduce the reliance on foreign labour. The earlier we start this, the better success we shall have. I have the privilege to be working with many elderly in Chinatown for more than 10 years. I found that active and healthy living in the community with friends, supported by VWOs and grassroots community; keep our elderly happy and healthy. Even when they were struck with severe illnesses, early intervention with care and assistance enabled many to recover quickly to be able to live independently. Thus, facilities to enable healthy community living should be made available. The purpose of such facilities is to enable independent living lifestyles for as long as possible for our elderly. This is also to enable future tapping of resources of the community elderly to care for their buddy frail elderly. This is one good way of self-help and using previously untapped extra resource.

The rendering of assistance on other frail ones will become easier and with more compassion in a community of elderly that have known each other for a longer time. There is also merit to get support from voluntary group organisations and grassroots organisations for such facilities. For a start, all studio apartments should have such facilities.

Such facilities are based on the tenet of preventive care in keeping active and healthy living for as long as possible in the community, thus reducing the need for dependent care or expensive institutional care.

Two, the care for the elderly poor. With the growing number of elderly population, and especially with smaller families and fewer children to give the elderly the financial support, the number of the elderly poor will increase in the future. The retirement age has to be further raised so that people can keep their jobs for as long as possible to support themselves. But, as in any society, there will always be those that are disadvantaged. These numbers will increase in the future for the reasons I mentioned earlier. The Government's coffers may be decreasing with slower economic growth of the future. May I beseech our Government to have safety net policies entrenched to ensure that the needy elderly are taken care of? I would like to suggest the setting up of an elderly needy endowment fund, similar to the Medifund, when our economy is still growing. The Medifund gives the assurance that "no Singaporean will be deprived of medical care due to the lack of means" and with the establishment of needy funds, we can add another assurance: "No Singaporean will be deprived of their daily living due to the lack of means". I am convinced that Singaporeans will support it and, by this provision, it will show that ours is a

Page: 79

Government that cares. People can understand and relate to the need for continued growth in Singapore's economy so that we can continue to take better care of the less fortunate citizens.

Third, healthcare. Many elderly are concerned about healthcare costs. I am glad we have our 3M-system in place, which is the envy of many countries. The new Community Health Assist Scheme is also another medical subvention scheme especially for the elderly. The recently introduced yearly Medisave top-up for our elderly is laudable indeed. We need to explain all these schemes to more people, especially the elderly, to allay their fear.

My concern on healthcare is on the provision of medical professionals and the physical medical infrastructure to cope adequately and timely on the increasing demand of an ageing population. The need for nursing homes, community hospitals and acute hospitals will increase exponentially. Thus, it is necessary to have a good postulation on demand with the possible 6.9 million people and an ageing population. Early planning and proactive measures must be in place. Preventive healthcare and prevention of long-term care in institutional settings should remain the hallmark of eldercare.

Step-down care facilities such as community hospitals, nursing homes, day-care centres and community-care centres must be adequately provided so as to reduce the overload on expensive acute hospital beds.

I feel that, ideally, the care of the elderly will be in assisting them to live as independently and for as long as possible in their own homes with appropriate support as in homecare. It is possible, as in England, to have affordable healthcare workers that can be trained in their specific scope of medical care in a matter of months for homecare. They are trained to do simple homecare such as wound dressing, changing of catheters, nasogastric tubes and so on. This will relieve the total dependence for doctors and nurses for homecare.

May I also suggest that all our future HDB flats, especially studio apartments, should be designed such that adaptations can be done and mobility assisting equipment can be fitted when the need arises? This will facilitate independent living for the frail elderly and also to facilitate homecare for those who are sick.

In closing, Mdm Speaker, I hope that our Government will continue to give higher consideration for our elderly in future Government subventions. One good example is that instead of a blanket subvention for our public transport

Page: 80

fares, our Government's subsidy should be given directly for the elderly, such as free public transport for retirees. This will encourage mobility of the elderly to keep them active and healthy. Perhaps then, there will be less clamouring for CBD-housing as the elderly in the CBD can now travel freely to their children's homes island-wide.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I speak in support of the amendment Motion moved by hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. I think it clarifies the Government's intention and takes into consideration many of the concerns expressed by Members.

I particularly would like to mention the two sub-points that are contained in the amendments: that the Government is called upon to ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans; and carry out a medium-term review of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans. I think these are important additions that will help us to clarify our thoughts and also guide us going into the future.

Mdm Speaker, many Members before me have spoken from the heart about the concerns expressed by Singaporeans. Do we need to have so many immigrants? Are we getting the right immigrants? Can they be integrated into our society? I would like to address these concerns. I will focus on the need to sustain a strong Singaporean Core, and how we will work towards achieving this.

Last month, I visited an eldercare centre and met a lady there. She described her family to me. She has six children. Of the six, four are married and two have remained single. The four married children gave her five grandchildren. So, from large families of six children just a generation ago, more are remaining single, and those that are getting married are having significantly fewer children. This is quite typical amongst families in Singapore and it reflects our marriage and parenthood trends, and the demographic challenge of Singapore.

The demographic challenge of Singapore, in my mind, is an issue, an outcome of a facility not of today, not of the last three decades; it is of our yester

Page: 81

years, the years before we became an independent country. We had a baby boom and this is where we will see a Silver Tsunami hitting us.

To illustrate why we need to address this demographic challenge, I would like to introduce Members to a family, the Ng family. Mr Ng is 43 years old and his wife Mrs Ng is 40 years old. The two of them have six siblings in total. The couple has two daughters. The younger daughter, Michelle, is four; the older daughter, Joelle, is turning 10 this year. Joelle and Michelle have several cousins, uncles and aunties, as shown in Chart 1 [Please see Annex 3. Slides were shown to hon Members.]

Come 2020, this is how the family structure would look like in Chart 2 [Please see Annex 4.] Fast forward to 2030, Joelle will be 27 and Michelle will be 21, Chart 3 [Please see Annex 5.] Their parents will be 60 and 57 respectively. Their four grandparents will be in their 80s. With longevity and better healthcare, they are expected to live longer but may require some help. Looking at their immediate family structure, Joelle and Michelle would eventually be caring for six family members above 55 years old. If we look at their extended family on screen, Joelle, Michelle and her seven cousins – nine children today – would eventually be supporting and providing care for 17 family members in the previous generations. Over time, we will see a reversal of the typical family structure that we have today, one that is bottom heavy to one that is top heavy. The generations before us have more members than the next.

At the national level, more than a quarter of the citizen population will be aged 65 and above by 2030, compared to 11% today. The old-age support ratio will be 2:1. What does this support ratio mean to the Ng family? Physically, although I think the hon Member Mr Chen Show Mao has said that the elderly these days are probably better off, they are happier, they are engaged, they can live longer with healthcare and scientific developments. I agree, but there will be a day when they will become frail and they will need care, as Member Dr Lily Neo has so vividly described, the care that is needed on a very close basis, one-to-one. Even if we can move it to an institutional setting, we need more people in the institution giving care to our elderly.

It means that more of the Ng family who are in the working ages, would have to become the primary care-givers of an elderly family member. The ratio is about 10:14 or about one to one-and-a-half. The social cost of healthcare and other eldercare facilities for the elder family members will have to be paid

Page: 82

through the taxes of Joelle, Michelle and their seven cousins.

As society ages, there will be fewer working Singaporeans for every elderly Singaporean. The working Singaporeans will have to support and take care of the older members of their own families, as well as contribute to maintain essential services to sustain our way of life. We will also need more polyclinics, eldercare centres and hospitals to provide care for the elderly. This requires more healthcare workers to provide physical care for the elderly. At the current fertility rate, our citizen population will start to shrink beyond 2025, the result of that inverted family structure that you have seen earlier on, if we do not have some immigration.

But let me assure Members of the House that contrary to what the Workers' Party understands of our population policies, I would like to stress that encouraging marriage and parenthood is fundamental to ensuring a strong Singaporean Core, and this is central to our population policies. The most important way to strengthen the size of the Singaporean Core is through encouraging marriage and parenthood.

Several Members have raised suggestions on initiatives that could help to improve our birth rate, including improving work-life balance and better and more affordable access to housing. These are all good and useful suggestions. We have studied many alternatives over the course of the year, including what other countries have done, and have adopted what we think is right and feasible for Singapore at this point of time.

Our fertility rate has been below the replacement rate of 2.1 for several decades. The reasons are complex and we are not alone. Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan have similar trends like ours. In 2012, our total fertility rate was 1.29, which is good news, as it has moved up from the 1.20 that we had seen in the year before, but somewhat attributed to the dragon year effect.

Similar to East Asian economies, Singaporeans are marrying later, or remaining single. And with later marriages, they are having fewer children. We often look to the experiences of many countries to understand how we can improve our measures. South Korea, as mentioned yesterday by some Members of the House, was one of the countries which we studied. While the country's TFR may have moved from a low of 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2012, it may still be early days to conclude that they have successfully beaten the TFR decline.

Page: 83

As we know, TFR is affected by many factors. Parents who have children derive much love and joy from parenthood. The Government, however, understands the cost burden that they have to bear in raising their children. We have, therefore, set out to help shoulder some of the cost to support parenthood. The Marriage and Parenthood package announced recently is an enhancement to the packages implemented in 2001, 2004 and 2008.

Members have asked if our efforts in promoting marriage and parenthood have been effective. Last year, we consulted widely and engaged many stakeholders to gather views on how we can encourage marriage and parenthood. Our latest package took into consideration these suggestions. The package serves to address the common concerns of Singaporean parents arising from a variety of needs. From marriage, to the cost of delivery, to children's education and healthcare needs; from working couples, to families with stay-at-home parents; the package is designed to be comprehensive, addressing the different needs, yet targeting the subsidy at areas to benefit the most people, especially those who need more help. Also, as with many other countries we have surveyed, our measures are designed to support three broad outcomes: (a) support parents in balancing work and family life, (b) support shared parental responsibility in raising children, and (c) defray the costs of raising children.

These measures are not designed to replace the responsibility of parents, nor to reward Singaporeans for having children, because we believe that it is the responsibility of parents to raise and be responsible for their children.

We have enhanced the cash incentives: Baby Bonus, Medisave grant. Other enhancements broke new ground. For example, paternity leave and shared parental leave that signal strongly the important role of fathers in child-raising and shaping employers' perceptions of shared parenting responsibility.

How does this package help Singaporeans? Let me introduce another family, Mr Madjali's. Mr Madjali Bin Ahamadi, who works in retail sales, and Mdm Sharifah Shamsudin, a housewife, have two children. This is a lovely picture of the family with their newborn. [A slide was shown to hon Members.] Their elder son Imaan is five this year and their younger son Ihsan is four months old.

Mr Madjali's family has benefited from a range of measures under the Marriage and Parenthood package, such as the Baby Bonus cash gift and Child Development Account co-savings valued at $22,000, childcare leave and

Page: 84

childcare subsidies. As Ihsan was born in October 2012, he will also be eligible for the new Medisave grant for newborns. In addition to the existing six days of childcare leave per year for the first seven years, Mr Madjali will also enjoy the extended childcare leave of two days per year when their youngest child is between seven and 12 years old.

To recap, the recently announced enhancements provide support in the following areas:

First, enabling couples to get housing faster and more easily;

Second, providing support for medical-related conception and delivery costs;

Third, further defraying child-raising costs, including healthcare costs;

Fourth, enhancing work-life measures to help working couples balance work and family commitments; and

Fifth, signalling to fathers to play a bigger role through paternity and shared parental leave.

Mdm Sharifah appreciates the measures in support of joint parenting. She has shared that she appreciates her husband being around when she takes her children for their regular check-ups. I am very encouraged to hear that Mr and Mrs Madjali are open to having a third child within the next few years, and I wish them all the best in their efforts. If they do have another child, the family will fully enjoy our most recent enhancements.

If Mr and Mrs Madjali have their third child, Mr Madjali will have more opportunities to spend time with the newborn. He will get to enjoy one week of paternity leave paid by the Government, with the option to share one week of his wife's maternity leave if she returns to work. He can also take the six days' childcare leave and the one-week no-pay Infant Care leave. All in all, up to one month of leave from work for him to spend time with his newborn.

In addition, the children can also benefit from our efforts to improve the pre-school sector. The Minister for Social and Family Development will elaborate more on the affordability, accessibility and the quality of childcare

Page: 85

and infant care services later in the debate.

Members Ms Foo and Dr Intan, as well as other stakeholders in the society, have mentioned the need for more family-friendly work practices. To complement the enhancements announced in January, the Government is studying incentive schemes to encourage employers to offer flexible work arrangements for their employees. More details will be announced when ready. This enhancement, together with the existing Work-Life Works! Fund, will support employers in putting in place work-life friendly measures, including flexible work arrangement. Minister for Manpower, Mr Tan, will speak more on this later.

Now, please let me address the issue of marriage. Getting our young people to marry is an important objective. The desire to get married and have children remains strong amongst young people. Our Marriage and Parenthood Study in 2012 showed that 83% of singles desire to get married while 84% of married Singaporeans intend to have two or more children. Also, most respondents, more than 80%, felt strongly that only legally married parents should have children. Yet in 2011, four out of 10 men and three out of 10 women in the 30-34 age group remain unmarried. Not finding the right life partner, no time to date and the need to be financially secure first, are often quoted as reasons. Members and contributors have shared with us the importance of social attitudes and family values in shaping marriage and parenthood decisions. We have received good feedback on the attributes needed to encourage marriage and parenthood.

At the personal level, we need to address the importance of the family in our value system. At the family level, involved parents being good role models to their children, building strong bonds between family members, giving a safe and loving environment in the family, a supportive extended family. At the workplace, employment practices that are family friendly, recognising the responsibility of both parents. At the community level, a socially inclusive society, supportive of the less fortunate or the needy, and empathy for others. These are all positive societal values that will help encourage marriage and parenthood. The Government will set the direction and provide leadership but cannot achieve mindset change on our own. We need all stakeholders in the society to help us.

It would be useful to frame the mindset shifts needed as three questions.

Page: 86

First, why should Singaporeans get married and have children? Second, what mindsets do we need to change? Third, how can we support change in these areas?

Why should Singaporeans get married and have children? The answer simply is because we want to have children. Most Singaporeans want to have children. It is an extension of the love from our parents and a way of leaving our legacy by nurturing our own. Settling down and starting a family is a life goal that many Singaporeans want. Parents often speak of the fulfilment and joy that come with parenthood. A Lianhe Zaobao reader wrote in December last year how he changed his mind about parenthood. "Having children has made our lives more fulfilling," he said. "Every little step they took brought us elation and joy, and we were amazed and moved by every small change in them as they grew. Thanks to our children, our lives are now more complete and more meaningful."

In another article published just recently in a weekend edition, Mr Cai and Ms Lin shared about their experiences as a family with three children, and how they brought them great fulfilment. Ms Lin said and I quote, (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  "The sense of achievement of being a parent comes from helping to shape a human being, watching the children grow and hearing their laughter. A hug, a kiss or an 'I love you' from them could relieve you from any kind of anger or frustration or depression that you experience."

(In English): I hope that more Singaporeans will have the opportunity to experience the unique joys and fulfilment that only parenthood can bring.

What are the key messages to bring about mindset change? First, we should re-emphasise marriage and parenthood as key life goals. As individuals, we should ascribe importance to these life goals and give them priority in the early part of our adulthood. Ms Anita Fam, Chairman of Marriage Central, reminded young couples that they should not wait for the "perfect timing" to get married. Instead, it was more important that both partners share the belief that they would face life's challenges and burdens together.

Second, we need to highlight the benefits of having children early and the risks of leaving it too late. In the 2012 Marriage and Parenthood Study, 77% of married respondents indicated that couples would have little problem having children even when they were over 35 years old. This is of course not true, as fertility already starts going into decline in our late 20s. We need to make

Page: 87

couples aware of the need to prioritise starting a family alongside career and other aspirations. Left too late, fertility treatments will not be able to overcome the age-related decline in fertility. The success rates of Artificial Reproduction Technology treatments are only about 25%.

Third, emphasising that raising children is the responsibility of both parents. Ms Foo spoke on the importance of joint parenting. Our study showed that 99% of married respondents agreed that fathers and mothers are equally important as caregivers for children. If this is already the case, why the need to emphasise shared responsibility? It is because the majority of the women in Singapore still see raising children as their main responsibility and therefore feel the stresses of balancing work and raising children, especially the education of their children, more so than the fathers. They would be encouraged to have more children if fathers could take on a greater role in raising children. Societies where parenting is shared more equally between men and women tend to have higher fertility rates. Shared parental leave and paternity leave are signals that the Government send to employers and couples about where the society stands on this issue. Which leads me to the fourth message.

Employers should see the value in having a family-friendly work culture to support better work-life balance. Again, 77% of married female respondents preferred to be employed after having a child. Also, respondents were quite equally split between part-time and full-time employment options, with about 40% preferring part-time employment. Our recent National Work-Life Harmony survey found that respondents who scored high on the Work-Life Harmony Index continued to report better work, family and personal outcomes. Notably, the study also found that people with high work-life harmony scores want more children than those with low scores.

On the whole, the benefits of supporting a family-friendly culture are manifold. Besides supporting the needs of working parents and helping them balance their family and work commitments, employers also stand to benefit from having more engaged and productive employees who are more likely to stay with the company. Companies with flexi-work and flexi-time arrangements can also attract more women to stay on the job, thus meeting the manpower needs in a tight labour market situation.

Fifth, we need to recognise the stress that parents feel in raising children and give the assurance that we will try our best to address the causes. We have received a fair amount of feedback on the education system and would like to reassure parents that we have heard their feedback. MOE has started to rebalance our education system. For example, schools have reduced emphasis

Page: 88

on examinations in Primary 1 and 2. They are placing greater emphasis on non-academic programmes like Physical Education, Art and Music. We have introduced diverse educational pathways in our system to cater to those with different areas of strength and different learning needs. MOE is making changes at a steady pace that is appropriate for the children. We hope that the changes will reduce the competitiveness in the system and refocus our attention on giving our children a holistic education and one that is values based. We should give our children and parents the confidence and assurance that their children will be brought up with good knowledge and skills that will prepare them for a wide range of job options later.

How can we support these changes? Values and societal attitudes are wide-ranging and are influenced by many stakeholders in society – from the parents who are role models for their children, to the teachers in our schools, to the employers. The various Ministries are heeding the feedback of Singaporeans and are taking steps to address them. MSF and MOE are addressing pre-school needs; MOM is addressing issues in the workplace just to name a few. Some issues require the involvement of the greater community. For example, the Government works closely with our community partners to spread pro-family messages and reach out to Singaporeans. These include:

(a) I Love Children which hopes to see a Singapore that is children-plenty and children-friendly;

(b) Dads for Life serves as a focal point for all activities of the national Dads for Life movement to inspire and involve all Dads to play a more active role in their children's lives for life;

(c) The National Family Council and Marriage Central, just to name a few.

Some contributors have suggested we use the media to further highlight the importance of family. The media have been putting in effort on this front, such as by drawing attention to the value of a family-friendly workplace culture. For example, The Straits Times published an article yesterday highlighting the importance of workplace flexibility and how employers can benefit from changes in mindsets. Other suggestions range from having more television programmes and commercials to seed the idea of marriage and parenthood, such as game shows to encourage matchmaking. We will explore all new ideas.

But above all, everyone has a part to play. Our study showed that singles were most comfortable meeting members of the opposite sex through: (i)

Page: 89

recreational, sports and social activities; (ii) friends or fellow students; and (iii) colleagues and work acquaintances. This tells us that every one of us, in our capacity as family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours have the potential to make a difference in somebody's marriage and parenthood journey. So, I hope that Singaporeans will actively help one another to prioritise marriage and parenthood as key life goals.

While we are pursuing efforts to increase marriage and parenthood, at the same time, we are also realistic about how quickly birth rates can improve. We are hopeful on this front and ambitiously looking forward to improving our TFR to 1.4-1.5. But realistically speaking, this will take time. In the meantime, we continue to have to address the shortfall of births and our approach has been to supplement our citizen population with a calibrated pace of immigration. Allowing immigration does not mean that we do not take our marriage and parenthood objectives seriously. Members have spoken on the risks of taking in too many immigrants too quickly. It takes time and effort for our immigrants to understand and adapt to our norms. If the texture of society changes too quickly, we will experience a sense of displacement and an erosion of our national identity. We fully understand the concerns of Singaporeans feeling displaced in our own country.

Over the years, we have calibrated our immigration policies to achieve a slower rate but better-quality immigration. We adopt a set of comprehensive criteria which includes the individual's economic contributions, qualifications, age and family ties. We tightened our criteria in 2009 and have brought down the number of PRs granted from a high of 79,000 in 2008, to an average of 29,000 per year in the last three years.

We will continue to take a measured approach in taking in immigrants who can contribute and integrate well into our society.

Basically, we can look at our population as one of three concentric circles.

First, at the core of it all is our people. All our policies are designed to ensure that citizens get the lion's share of any privileges and benefits, in recognition that this is their home. We have relentlessly improved our healthcare, education, marriage and parenthood, and other benefits given to Singaporeans only. For example, in the past year, we introduced greater differentiation in healthcare subsidies, school fees and in balloting for Primary 1 registration. We also recently raised the Additional Buyer Stamp Duty (ABSD) for foreigners and introduced an ABSD of 5% for PRs acquiring their first property. Each year, we

Page: 90

will grant citizenship from 15,000 to 25,000 individuals, PRs making the vast majority of successful applicants. The PRs who are granted citizenship would have met our criteria in terms of their ability, assimilability, family ties and would have stayed in Singapore for some time. These new citizens make a solemn commitment to our nation. They sever their ties with their birth countries. It must have been a difficult decision. As the late Mr S Rajaratnam put it, "Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice." Once they have made the decision to sink roots in Singapore, we do not distinguish their status from the rest. As Minister of State Amy Khor has said very, very passionately, "they make great contributions, they are part of the community and we are grateful for their participation in this country".

This leads me to the second ring which comprises PRs – many of whom have worked or studied in Singapore for several years before becoming a PR. So, to become a Singapore citizen, they will have spent a few days as PRs and before that a few years in Singapore. When assessing their applications, we consider a holistic set of criteria to evaluate not only their economic contributions, but also their ability to integrate and sink root into our society as well. So, Members, we can see that actually with a PR selection, with citizenship selection, both of these steps do consider the assimilability, the years they have spent in Singapore, their ability to integrate, their linkages, their family ties and the years they spend in Singapore. Both these criteria have that in the consideration as part of the framework. Many are also dependants who go through our school system and serve NS. Others are spouses or children of our citizens. The number of this group will stay stable at around 0.5 million to 0.6 million. When the basis for becoming PR no longer exists – for example, if they are staying for a prolonged period of time outside Singapore – we may decide not to renew their re-entry permits (REPs).

Next, the outermost ring which comprises non-resident workers. We can control the number and the length of stay through a range of administrative measures – quotas, salary criteria, levy, and so on. The ones with better qualifications, not more than 30,000 a year, can become PR after a period of time working and contributing to Singapore. So, this is really a transient group. Their numbers may be increasing but they come and go and we can reduce the numbers when economic situation requires.

Mr Seng Han Thong, Mr Arthur Fong and Ms Sylvia Lim asked if we could do more for the foreign spouses of Singaporeans or tap on them for our manpower needs. Most foreign spouses who apply for a long-term immigration facility are granted at least a Long-Term Visit Pass. Earlier on, Minister of State Amy Khor had spoken about the privileges of the Long-Term Social Visit Pass.

Page: 91

We had also introduced the Long-Term Visit Pass-Plus (LTVP+) last year to provide more support to Singaporean families with foreign spouses.

Order. Dr Ng Eng Hen, please.