A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore

Mdm Speaker, at the heart of everything we do and every policy we develop, we must consider how they will affect Singaporeans and their families. In this White Paper, we acknowledge the different trade-offs that we may have to make in terms of immigration, economic growth and overcrowding. I would like to begin by addressing what I view as the root cause – the lack of procreation and whether we have provided sufficient support for our Singaporean families.

First, I would like to thank the Government for accepting a number of NTUC's proposals in its broad measures in encouraging Singaporeans to marry and have children and also protect pregnant women. I am sure that the enhanced package will be useful for many married couples who plan on starting a family and even having more children. The challenge remains as to how we can get our young people started onto the path of marriage and then having children.

As the Minister shared earlier, in a 2012 Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) study, 83% of the single respondents indicated that they would like to get

Page: 96

married and more than 80% of the single respondents indicated that they would like to have two or more children. I am not sure how reflective those figures are, but residents I speak to lament that the high costs of living have significantly changed the dynamics of how people work and raise families. With higher costs of living, both men and women are now required to work to support their families and to juggle both work and family responsibilities.

Ultimately, getting married and having children is a personal choice and belief. It is often difficult to explain the joys and fulfilment that come with parenting and raising children until you have children yourself.

By the same token, not every family has elderly parents who can help or can afford to engage a domestic helper or care-giver to look after their children. As such, added measures to make childcare more accessible and affordable will be a great boon.

There are facilities that employers and the Government can work together to provide for parents and parents-to-be. With support from employers, businesses and Government, more infant-care and childcare centres can be opened nearer to parents' workplaces rather than just in the HDB heartlands and residential areas.

I appreciate the Government's support to implement paternity and shared parental leave. In fact, the father's more active role in childcare has already been taking place, even before the enactment of any legislation. I am aware that in many employment contracts and collective agreements, many pro-active employers are already providing paid paternity leave from a range of two to three days to some a week.

With Government stepping in to fund one week of paternity leave, I urge employers and companies to be enlightened to top up and not level up. With this, I mean that, for example, if an employer or a company is already currently providing two days of paternity leave, they should top it up by a week to one week and two days since there is no or minimal cost impact to employers for the first week.

Aside from leave enhancements, what would be more critical, in my view, is how we can implement flexible work arrangements in the workplace. I urge all employers to fully embrace and implement flexible work arrangements in all workplaces. This will also help encourage homemakers to return to their

Page: 97

workforce after their children have grown.

In my view, enhancing the WoW! Fund alone in the new Marriage and Parenthood package may not translate into a change in mindset on the part of employers that family life and well-being is important. I await the details and plans listed in the Marriage and Parenthood package on how the enhanced WoW Fund will help to encourage more companies to adopt family-friendly work practices. Company culture and its management philosophy play an overriding role in determining whether flexible work arrangements will be effective.

Taking care of a child in modern society requires the strong support from employers to grant flexibility in both time and work arrangements for parents. At the same time, employee performance should be measured by work objectives fulfilled rather than by face time in the office. If the work objectives are fulfilled, there should not be any changes or deduction in remuneration. Even for existing companies that have implemented flexible work arrangements, have we assessed their effectiveness? How many companies in Singapore have tapped onto the WoW! Fund and how have they used it?

It is interesting to note in the latest MOM report that we have a tight labour market with vacancies rising by 4.4% to hit 56,400 in September 2012. Some reasons that the jobs are not taken up by Singaporeans are because the pay is not attractive enough and the working hours/patterns are not able to fit well with their family commitments. Employers will need to look into how to package these jobs and how to implement flexi-work along with it. There is a common perception amongst employers that flexi-work is not applicable to every job. This would be the easy way out to avoid taking the time and effort to re-design work processes.

Adoption rate by employers is still not widespread today. If employers do not respond to this call for action, we should perhaps look at legislating the right for employees to ask for flexible work arrangements similar to that in Australia. Flexi-work arrangements should not be seen as an exception in the workplace but as a ready arrangement to support working parents and get even more women back to work.

The other main drawback of the Marriage and Parenthood package is the lack of recognition or acknowledgment of the important role of stay-at-home mothers. Many of the incentives listed in the Marriage and Parenthood package are rightly focused on working parents since they face difficult challenges both

Page: 98

at home and in the workplace. However, for stay-at-home mums, let us not forget the sacrifices that they have made for their children. These mothers could have highly qualified backgrounds and could have easily risen through the ranks to become successful Professionals, Managers and Executives (PMEs). Nonetheless, some have decided to sacrifice their careers to be at home with their children to care and nurture them. Their economic contributions whilst not as tangible should not be ignored by the Government.

Child-raising is tough work. For home-makers with two or more children and with no domestic help, they may need to place one or more of their children in childcare for the younger ones or even student care for the older ones. The problem now is that there is no childcare or child minding subsidy for them as they are not gainfully employed. Extending the current subsidy to home-makers who have two or more children will be helpful.

Likewise, for full-time home-makers, the Government should even consider a yearly top-up to their CPF Medisave and Special Accounts. Stay-at-home mums can also be equipped with the right skills and knowledge to set up home businesses to supplement the family income. In this regard, perhaps the Government can also help to provide interest-free or nominal interest micro-loans to these budding home entrepreneurs.

The switch from a stay-at-home mum to back-to-work woman is another area for us to focus on in this tight labour market situation. We need better information and knowledge on what are the challenges and difficulties that they face in integrating back to the workplace. Some female PMEs I met told me that they have been required to take deep pay cuts to re-join the workforce. They are also often being biased against as they are seen to have "lost touch". MOM should study the ways that we can properly optimise this often neglected source of talent and manpower. Surely, we can do more for stay-at-home mothers who have devoted their own lives to the next generation, to nation building.

Union leaders I spoke to acknowledge the need for unskilled and low-skilled foreign labour in certain industries where Singaporeans shun. This is crucial for us so as to maintain the costs of living, standards of living and overall well-being for our own Singaporeans. On the other end of the spectrum, there are concerns about foreign PMEs taking away local jobs. Looking at the projected statistics, there will a significant increase in PMET jobs by 2030. By then, 1.25 million Singaporeans will be in PMET jobs compared to 850,000 today. I am glad that the White Paper highlights the need for a Singaporean Core. It is therefore important for us to consider the necessary safeguards that we require

Page: 99

to help to put that into action and ensure our local PMEs have job security and fair wages.

PMEs and union members I have spoken to are genuinely worried about their jobs and potential PME openings going to foreign PMEs. Till now, we do not have information about the quota set for foreign PMEs or if there is indeed a foreign PME dependency ratio. In previous sittings, I have also called for labour market testing to ensure that Singaporean PMEs will be considered for job vacancies first. I understand that for any employer bent on recruiting foreigners, labour market testing could be just be a window-dressing or a process that they have to go through.

As a suggestion, I would like to float the idea of whether there are certain sectors with extremely large number of foreign PMEs, where a foreign PME dependency ratio or labour market testing can be meted out. Perhaps even to come up with a COE system for hiring of foreign PMEs – and I do not mean Certificate of Entitlements. COE means "Conditions Of Eligibility" for employers to meet before hiring foreign PMEs, with conditions such as fulfilment of certain critical skills gap, labour market testing and having a Singaporean Core in that particular company.

In this global economy, I am deeply worried for mature local PMEs who have to face up to the competition posed by well-qualified foreigners. This is really of no fault of their own as they can be just as committed to the company as any other foreign employee. However, due to global changes and challenges, skills gap and career development by their employers, they can be easily displaced during company restructuring. Sometimes, to their shock, the employers refill the same exact position with a foreign employee. From a career development perspective, there ought to be ready avenues and access to professional upgrades or conversions for them from agencies such as the Workforce Development Agency (WDA). While I am glad to note that Caliberlink has been set up by WDA as a dedicated placement agency for PMEs with career services and support, I am concerned whether we can cope with large numbers of local PMEs being displaced when economic downturn or depression happens.

We need to see greater urgency in the overall development of career support and advisory services in the face of huge increase of PMEs in the future workforce. While the population trajectory will be for 2030, we will need to start our work in engaging the stakeholders to ensure that the PMEs will have their

Page: 100

voices heard and concerns acted upon.

I, therefore, endorse and support the amendments raised earlier by the hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, which will reassure us all in Singapore a strong Singaporean Core and ensure better job opportunities and salaries for our Singaporeans.

One big worry on the mind of Singaporeans is their future accessibility to healthcare. Each of our polyclinics sees an average of about 1,000 patients per day, a few even see up to 1,200 to 1,400 patients a day. Waiting times at polyclinics, hospital accident and emergency departments and specialist outpatient clinics have lengthened. The hospitals are bursting at their seams. With a greying population and our baby boomers hitting 65 years and above in the next 10 years, I am sure that they will have to cope with more medical and healthcare issues for our population. While there will be an increase of 4,100 hospital beds by 2020 and an increase of support care facilities in our communities, people are generally concerned whether we would be able to cope with the future healthcare needs. By 2020, the population may be at 6 million compared to 5.31 million now. A simple calculation will show that the corresponding increase in hospital beds is less than even 1% of the increase in total population. Is this a realistic figure? While we expect existing hospitals to be able to accept the stretch as well, is this not an unlikely prospect with current healthcare facilities filled to the brim? However, I am glad to hear from the Minister for Health that his Ministry is reviewing and adjusting its strategic plans in light of this White Paper.

As the Executive Secretary of the Healthcare Services Employees' Union (HSEU) representing healthcare employees, I am also deeply concerned about the huge strain placed on healthcare employees in meeting the healthcare needs of a burgeoning population. There must be concrete plans put in place to beef up the healthcare workforce to cope with this surge in demand. I note from the footnote in page 40 of the White Paper that there will be increases in foreign healthcare manpower for the healthcare sector up to 28,000 in 2030. When I speak to our local healthcare employees and union members, they value the support and help from our foreign healthcare employees. In fact, the HSEU has many foreign healthcare employees as our union members. To meet the healthcare needs of our people, we may well need sufficiently trained healthcare professionals at all levels from various departments − from allied, ancillary, nursing and doctors. The Singapore Core should remain, the healthcare sector should continue to hire Singaporeans First, but, most importantly, we acknowledge the need to supplement with a foreign workforce

Page: 101

to ensure we provide the best care for our people.

Since the release of the White Paper, I have also met many Yishun residents and they have given me much feedback via email, Facebook and so on. I would like to touch a bit on creating living spaces for the residents in Yishun. This will include having a good transport network, amenities and green spaces for residents.

To begin with, the current public transport network and system is crowded especially during peak hours and even off peak. It is not just about getting to the train station within 10 minutes that matters. I think what matters is also whether one will be able to board the train, and in my constituency, Nee Soon East, whether one can even board the feeder services.

To further exacerbate the feeder services problem, there are two foreign worker dormitories located in my constituency and they too spill over to the public buses despite much appeal to the dormitories to cater private transport services for these workers. My hope is that the Government can turn Yishun into a regional centre, just like Jurong East with integrated services such as an expanded bus interchange, increased feeder services, well distributed amenities and interconnected parks, to avoid taking away more green spaces.

I am, therefore, happy to note the earlier amendment to the Motion moved by the hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa. The amendment states that the Government will place, as a priority, to resolve the current strains on our infrastructure, in particular transport.

With the above, I support the White Paper and amendments as earlier moved by the hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, for its long-term strategic view of continuing Singapore's success story.

Mdm Speaker, over the past decade, Singapore's population has grown by over 1.2 million people to reach 5.3 million last year. Our GDP growth figures were rosy for most of the last decade. Income inequality has risen significantly. The wages of the bottom income earners were held down in part by the influx of foreign labour while higher income earners enjoyed huge gains in their income and wealth during this period.

Page: 102

The much-anticipated White Paper on Population projects population growth of another 1.6 million people, largely through immigration and foreign workers, over the next 18 years to reach up to 6.9 million by 2030. The Paper positions population growth as necessary for economic growth. Singaporeans are then given a Hobson's choice: accept more new immigrants and foreign workers, or face a declining economy and lower quality of life.

This is a false dilemma. In my speech today, I will outline how I believe we can stabilise the population size, while improving our economic dynamism and ensuring a more sustainable Singapore for future generations to enjoy.

The White Paper sets a goal for Singapore to become a "leading city" that can attract talent and enterprise, and set the pace for other cities. It is this goal that seems to be driving the GDP growth target of 3% to 5% per year. This GDP growth probably cannot be achieved by productivity growth alone, so a high rate of mostly foreign labour force growth is needed. This, in turn, will drive up our population size.

Does being a leading city or global city improve the quality of life of all Singaporeans? Global cities attract many young migrants from their hinterlands and around the world. Even though their fertility rates are low, their populations continue to increase through immigration. But it is expensive to live in a global city. Many cannot afford to live in such expensive places upon retirement, so they move to other parts of their country with lower costs of living.

Will our retirees have such options when they are too old to work, since Singapore does not have any hinterland to speak of?

The Government needs to better explain to Singaporeans not only the benefits of population growth, but also the attendant costs that citizens will have to bear. With a larger population, businesses benefit from a larger pool of customers. Their profits increase, and their owners, top managers and shareholders reap the returns and benefits.

On the other hand, the negative effects of population growth are mostly borne by ordinary citizens. They have to suffer through overcrowded MRT trains, buses and public spaces. They continue to pay high prices for housing. They have to compete for jobs with foreigners and their wage expectations must be lowered in order for them to remain competitive. The higher transportation demand pushes up COE prices, which puts cars out of reach for many. Taxpayers also have to bear the cost of infrastructure development to

Page: 103

accommodate a larger population.

Has the Government calculated overall cost per new immigrant compared to per capita benefits which accrue to citizens? The Government has spelled out the expected GDP growth, but has it done any projections for real income growth of workers come 2030?

For the last decade in Singapore, GDP growth has been driven mainly by labour inputs. The generous supply of foreign workers has lowered the bargaining power of local workers, forcing them to accept lower wages in order to be competitive. This has led to much of the benefits of our stellar GDP growth accruing to company profits instead of workers' wages. Our workers' wage share as a percentage of GDP is relatively small compared to other developed countries. In 2011, just 42.3% of Singapore's GDP went to workers' wages. In contrast, according to OECD data, the wage share was 47.5% in Australia, 49.2% in the European Union and 52.3% in Canada. If companies here continue to rely heavily on foreign workers, there will be little incentive for employers to think hard about ways to boost productivity.

But if growth is driven mainly by productivity gains, it would lead to higher real wage increases for workers. In a tight labour market, companies will need to pay their local workers more to retain them, as well as to restructure themselves to become more productive. Therefore, higher productivity growth is critical for our next phase of growth, and we should not let up in our pursuit of our productivity targets.

Our population has grown from 3 million in 1990 to about 4 million in 2000 to 5 million in 2010. This is an increase of about 1 million per decade. The White Paper projects the population to continue growing by the same quantum. It is projected to grow to almost 6 million by 2020 and almost 7 million by 2030. What will happen after 2030? Will we grow to 8 million in 2040 and 9 million in 2050?

I am concerned that the Government seems to be proposing a "population growth forever" model, whereby each successive generation requires a larger workforce to keep expanding the GDP. This is simply not sustainable.

Our population will eventually reach the limit of our island's space. Eventually, all the reserve land will be used up and we would have reclaimed land to its limit. When that happens, we will have to settle for zero population

Page: 104

growth because of constraints in Singapore's physical size.

If we head down the path spelled out in the White Paper, as we approach 2030 we will again be debating about how to maintain economic growth without growing our population. The main difference then is that we would be bursting at the seams with close to 7 million people crammed on this island. We will have less room for error in planning. And that would be a truly worrying situation.

It would be more responsible to restructure our economy now to grow with fewer labour inputs, than to leave it to future governments to deal with this problem. We need to start planning for an economy that assumes a stabilised population, rather than to rely on perpetual increases in labour through immigration and foreign workers. We must invest more in developing the skills of our people, improving our technology and investing in more capital so as to be able to increase productivity and raise wages.

The Workers' Party is proposing a more moderate pace of growth of our labour force, compared to what the Government has planned in its White Paper. We envision a workforce which grows mainly through local instead of foreign labour force growth.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I would like to request the Clerk to distribute a table listing our projected GDP, labour force and population growth numbers.

We will target to increase our local labour force by up to 1% per year from now until 2030. We should strive to keep our foreign labour force constant between now and 2020, depending on our success in growing the local labour force. It does not mean that we shut the doors to foreign workers. Instead, new work passes will be issued only to replace expiring work passes or to supplement shortfalls in the local labour force. Companies will have to find ways to hire more Singaporeans.

How will we grow our resident labour force if the number of new entrants is not increasing due to declining fertility trends? One way would be to increase our labour force participation rate, so that more residents of working age are encouraged to work. The Labour Force Survey 2012 from MOM found that there

Page: 105

are 418,000 economically inactive residents of working age, of which 90,000 are willing to work. This is a valuable pool of labour that can be tapped.

With slower labour force growth, our economy will rely mainly on productivity improvements to grow. If the Government meets its 2% to 3% per year productivity growth target, we could enjoy 2.5% to 3.5% GDP growth per year up to 2020, which is far better than the 1.2% we achieved last year and the 1.8% average achieved by OECD countries in 2011.

Between 2020 and 2030, if we maintain labour force growth of 1% per year, and productivity grows by the Government's 1% to 2% target during this period, this will generate 1.5% to 2.5% GDP growth per year, which is still 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 by 2020, and 5.6 million to 5.8 million by 2030. This is significantly lower than the 6.5 million to 6.9 million that the Government is projecting by 2030. More importantly, we will not need so many foreign workers and immigrants to supplement the local labour force, which will help us better preserve the Singaporean core.

What would be the trade-offs of having a slower inflow of foreign workers? The Singapore Business Federation has said that slower labour force growth in Singapore will have "devastating consequences for many companies" and that if businesses go under, jobs will be lost and Singaporeans will be affected.

I empathise with the concerns of many businesses, especially SMEs, which will be impacted by further curbs on foreign labour. For many businesses it will mean lower profits, as they will need to pay higher wages to their Singaporean workers to attract and retain them. However, companies which are dependent on low-wage foreign labour will face the greatest difficulties and will have to restructure.

Economic restructuring is painful but it is critically important for our nation's future. The Government should commit to supporting companies and workers through the restructuring process, as well as retraining workers to provide them with the right skills to make a transition to another industry.

Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper proposes a population policy that continues to increase our reliance on foreign labour, leading to large increases in our population, which is unsustainable in the long run. I cannot

Page: 106

accept this as the roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and therefore I oppose the Motion.

The Workers' Party instead proposes a plan which places less emphasis on foreign workforce growth and focuses more on local workforce and productivity growth. This will increase the dynamism and real incomes of our local workers, while putting Singapore on a path towards more stable and sustainable population growth trajectory. Under the Workers' Party's plan, I am confident we will have a more dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, if I may attempt to seek clarifications again. I tried to seek some clarifications earlier. I am actually very interested to increase our labour force participation rate. I think I have said that many times – it is important. We do have a fair number of economic inactives. They are older workers and so on. We have put in place a number of measures. We have shown, in terms of Labour Force Participation Rate (LFPR) for some of our older workers, after Japan and Korea, we are one of the highest in the world. We can still have some room to grow and we intend to strengthen those initiatives.

But a key component of the Member's strategy is to beef up the LFPR to such a stage that we actually do not need foreign workers in Singapore. I am very interested to know the initiatives and ideas to bring that about and that is key. It is not the rhetoric that is important. Governance is about how do you translate ideas, visions into reality, and that is what it is really about; not just rhetoric, not just pressing the right emotive buttons. It is about making things happen so that we can realise a shared vision about how to make things better for Singaporeans.

Madam, I am not sure why the Minister seems to imply that we are just doing rhetoric. We intend to push for measures to increase the LFPR. We have mentioned things like flexi-work, telecommuting, part-time work. But I think one area that is a very good way of increasing the LFPR is to raise wages. The reason is because it increases the opportunity cost of people staying at home. People will weigh the cost of staying at home versus going out to work and I believe that that is one key way in which we can raise

Page: 108

the participation rate.

I am not saying that MOM is not doing anything right now to raise the Labour Force Participation Rate. We appreciate the work-life balance measures that MOM is taking, but I think that there is more that can be done, and this is one way. If we can raise the wages of workers in Singapore, that might encourage a lot more people to go out to work.

A key component of one of the things the Member said in the latter part of his speech was about retraining, investing in capital and investing in re-developing skills so that our workers could remain relevant. We totally agree. We do spend a lot on our CET training and we do intend to continue to strengthen that. Our productivity and restructuring – those cornerstones. We need to pursue productivity at all cost, as much as we can because that is key for us. We cannot continue as before and we fully acknowledge that. As we have said – very often – with productivity, wages would also go up. That is something we are working on. I would be very interested to know what more and what else.

What I have detected so far would seem to be that all things that the Member has suggested focuses on "Let us do more". And those things we are doing more of, but I would like to explore what other initiatives and ideas specifically that will provide that significant delta. That is what we are looking for and that is really important. If there are useful suggestions, I am very keen to explore what those might be.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for your indulgence. I would not fully agree. I would say this: the goal is not GDP growth, the goal is not the number. The goal is to be able to provide a level of economic growth, and the goal is not economic growth. It is to be able to provide a quality of life for our

Page: 109

people. We agree with the Workers' Party on that.

The question is how do you bring that about? These things do not happen naturally. There are challenges, there is competition. Whatever we do, other countries are doing as well; so we need to be in cognisance of that. Labour Force Participation Rate is important – and we recognise it not because we do not – we do want to let go on that. There are many things that are on-going concurrently. If we are able to be successful in bringing up Labour Force Participation Rate, if we can improve our TFR, for example, the workforce will only kick in probably in the post 2030-2035 timeframe. What do you do in-between?

If we can increase our Labour Force Participation Rate, if we can also reach our productivity target and even exceed it, that gives us policy space to not necessarily ramp up the foreign labour force, as needed. The target is not to reach that level of foreign labour force; the target is to generate the level of growth that we can provide for our people. We are actively turning our back on economic growth, to scale down because we cannot sustain that level of growth. It needs to be sustainable to meet a range of options that we can provide for our people.

Is the Minister asking about new citizens?

Page: 111

Yes, that is my question.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there has been a lot of media attention on what the 2030 population numbers in this White Paper represent. Is this a target? Is it a projection or "a worst case scenario"? Yes, the Deputy Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain that the White Paper is very much an exercise in infrastructure planning for Singapore.

But make no mistake. The 6.5 million to 6.9 million population range by 2030 is a planning target set by the Government, subject to the economic situation in the next 15 or so years, but a target, nevertheless. The Minister has given us his justification for the target set. As such, the Singapore People's Party do not agree to the recommendation of the White Paper. We are also disappointed that the White Paper which as one Public Policy academic pointed out, "did not even contain a reference session to show what research the writers of the Paper had done or the methodology employed". In fact, the only citations we found in this White Paper prepared by the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) were seven of their own papers and briefs. Talk about cyclical reasoning.

The White Paper raises more questions than it seeks to answer. If one of the main pillars of the White Paper is to maintain a strong and stable Singaporean Core, since we are told that the current Total Fertility Rate puts that under threat, then why is it necessary for the non-citizen population to keep growing? Is this so that we will have a bigger pool of foreigners to audition to become Singaporeans? Is the non-citizen population expected to grow after 2030 or stagnate at the 2030 level? If it is stagnant, what will happen to

Page: 120

economic growth, as this Government's model would dictate?

Ten to 20 years are, indeed, too long a period to make any realistic policy. But the logic underpinning the White Paper's recommendation necessitates a clearer policy direction for Singapore post 2030 to meet now. Does the Government intend to freeze the intake of foreigners in 2030? Or at the point when it realises that no land use plan will work anymore?

Let us take a look at four assumptions used in the White Paper. Firstly, the Minister has emphatically stated that the Government is not going for "Growth At All Costs". Nevertheless, the White Paper perpetuates the mindset of dependency on labour. It assumes that there is still a good chance for productivity growth to get better, whereas all the productivity enhancement schemes have not worked.

Secondly, Singapore is a city-state with no hinterland, a point with many consequences for recreation for national security. This sets our situation apart from just about every other highly developed cities in the world. It will be alright for those cities to have half a population of foreign residents.

For Hong Kong SAR, which is perhaps the only comparable city-state entity, their population density currently stands at only about 6,400 persons per sq km, compared with that of Singapore's current population density of about 7,200 persons per sq km. Even city-state entities like Hong Kong or Monaco do not have to take care of their national defence, a crucial point I will return to.

Thirdly, the White Paper is based on a very unique event in human history, namely, that of the Baby Boomers phenomenon. Given that Baby Boomers is a unique event in history and is transient in nature albeit for 10 years or longer, is it wise to plan for a country's population and infrastructure based on this event? Or put otherwise, can we justify bringing in more migrants to support aged Singaporeans, knowing that the new migrants will themselves contribute to the aged population? Which leads to the fourth point.

The White Paper assumes that bringing in more migrants is the solution to our worrying Old Age Support Ratio (OASR), through increased tax revenue collected and so on. But I do not know how this is applicable in Singapore, where the Government believes families should be the main source of financial and social support for the elderly, where the state is unabashedly anti-welfare.

Page: 121

How then can the new migrants support our elderly? How then can the increased revenue collected from them be channelled effectively to Singaporeans? Even if this is the case, we see no projected figures for the increased revenue expected, for substantiation in the White Paper.

I now deal with four points in the White Paper we take issue with.

Firstly, when the proportion of citizens out of the total population nears the 50% mark, as the 2030 numbers project, I do not know how we can convince our young men of the need for National Service, let alone lay down their lives for the nation. In the worst case scenario of war, they will ask – what are we defending? Why defend a country where so many of its residents can leave if they wish?

But we do not even need to go that far. Even right now, many are wondering why they should sacrifice two years of their lives, and in subsequent reservist cycles, only to be beaten in the job search by foreigners.

Secondly, the White Paper foresees that two-thirds of Singaporeans will take on PMET jobs in 2030, compared to 50% currently. Does it mean that foreigners will take up more non-PMET jobs in 2030, compared to the current numbers? So, is the plan for Singapore to attract foreigners of lower skill in 2030 as compared to now?

Thirdly, Chapter 5 of the White Paper is "A High Quality Living Environment", which ties in with the Government's idea that the quality of life can still be maintained in 2030. But what we find in that chapter, instead, is a focus on how our public transport system will be expanded, the new MRT lines that will be built, hospitals and so on.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, that is not what quality of life entails. These are the very basic infrastructure requirements for the influx of people the country wants to bring in! I was hoping to see more relevant indicators of the quality of life, such as a survey of satisfaction with life among Singaporeans. But no such measures seem to be used.

Fourth, if the White Paper is indeed the guiding document for infrastructure planning, are we doing enough? For instance, the stated plan is to increase the number of acute hospital beds by 2,200, or 30%. Considering that the increase in the total number of hospital beds over the last decade was zero, how can 2,200 more beds by 2020 be enough to cater for the 700,000 increase in the

Page: 122

population?

I now turn to the Land Use Plan, on which I have two questions for the Minister. Firstly, it was reported by a few media outlets that in this Plan, the Ministry of Defence's activities will be consolidated on Pulau Tekong, so as to free up the space it currently uses on the Singapore mainland, for development. I do not seem to be able to find any mention of this in the Land Use Plan document, so perhaps the Ministry announced this at the press conference.

Now, I have never heard of the armed forces of any country in the world that concentrates all its activities and, presumably, facilities, on one island, away from the mainland. Does that not make it a very easy target for Singapore's defence capabilities to be wiped out by a belligerent force? Perhaps, I have not understood this correctly. I will certainly appreciate any clarification from the Minister for Defence.

Secondly, according to Table 1 of the document, there will be only 4% of land left for "Others", in 2030. What happens if the population continues to grow after 2030, and if any effort of the Government to curtail that fails?

Perhaps, the Government thinks we can always resort to land reclamation. Then, the question is, how much more land can Singapore gain through reclamation thereafter? There must surely be a limit.

In conclusion, the Singapore People's Party is most concerned that there seems to be no new substantive initiatives in this White Paper to address Singaporeans' most pressing problems like negative real median wage increase over the last five years, and the relentless rise in the cost of living, particularly for basic goods and services. There is just the same old measures, like life-long upgrading, Workfare, job-matching and placement programmes.

For whom is the White Paper written? It does not address the concerns of low-income Singaporeans.

We are of the opinion the White Paper has framed the issues wrongly. A fundamental revamp of Singapore's economic growth model is sorely needed; not just stop-gap measures to deal with a population explosion which may themselves engender further costs.

Change has to start today. Our immigration policy must change more boldly. Conversion from foreigners to PR and later to Singaporeans must slow

Page: 123

down further.

SMEs that perform poorly in terms of productivity should not be allowed to be artificially sustained. The Government must make wise decisions over MNCs threatening to leave Singapore unless supported with foreign worker quotas to their liking.

It is highly regrettable that the Government has decided to rush through the debate and approval of such an important plank of national policy. The Government's programme of the so-called National Conversation has been a PR stunt. And there is no better indication of that than in the formulation of this White Paper. Singaporeans were told that they will start listening more to us, but ultimately, they will not tell us they know what is best.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the Motion for A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore and the accompanying Land Use Plan.

Mr Deputy Speaker, please let me share our land transport plans in support of the Population White Paper. I would touch briefly on these plans to support a possible population of 6.9 million by 2030. But I think it is more important for me to spend more time talking about the near term plans to improve the situation that we face today.

I try to ride on various parts of the rail network on a regular basis to get a first-hand update on the situation on the ground. I am mindful that this is not a complete experience because, unlike many commuters, when I do go on such visits, I do not face the constraint of getting to a particular destination by a defined time. Nonetheless, I think my conclusions are something that most Singaporeans will share and agree with.

First, during the morning peak hours, outside of the school holiday periods, it is very congested. I can understand why commuters are frustrated because, for them, this is a daily experience. Second, many commuters have to take a feeder to reach an MRT station, or from the station to their final destination. This can add quite significantly to their total journey time. Third, the variable waiting times and crowdedness on buses mean that the journey is less predictable and so it can fluctuate from day to day and this adds to the stress

Page: 124

that they face. And fourth, the occasional train disruption can wreck their plans for the day. Therefore, in speaking about our long- and short-term plans, I hope to address and improve on these areas.

By 2030, workers – foreign or local – permitting, we will double the current length of our rail network to about 360 km. We would have completed five more lines across the island – the Downtown Line, Thomson Line, Eastern Region Line, Cross Island Line and Jurong Region Line – to join the four that we already have. Perhaps we may have even more new lines under construction by then. We had a very interesting exchange on workers. I, therefore, ask that whoever is in charge will give us special dispensation on foreign workers for MRT construction, in particular, so that we can bring all these plans to fruition.

So, what, you may ask, about all these new lines that we are adding? Well, what it means is that we will have a much expanded public transport network, we would have added new capacity, and I believe that the travel experience will improve significantly as commuters are distributed over a larger network. By 2030, eight in 10 households will be within a 10-minute walk from an MRT station. Ninety percent of our buildings in the CBD area will be within a five-minute walk. The rail network will bring us to almost all key parts of Singapore and many can be less dependent on the vagaries of the bus feeders to reach their destinations.

However, the 2030 vision of a very convenient and high-quality public transport system is not so easy for many Singaporeans to visualise. What we have experienced in public transport in the last few years has affected how we view the future. We should have invested more in building new lines and buying new trains in the early years of the last decade. As the Prime Minister had explained, this was because of the very challenging economic circumstances, and we also had the difficult experience of the North East Line opening in 2003 and operating for a number of years with ridership well below what was planned for. Because we were too prudent and conservative in public transport infrastructure investment during the early years of the last decade, we now find ourselves doing a lot of catching up.

I, therefore, fully understand the scepticism and unhappiness from the public when the 6.9 million population figure was released in the White Paper. Seen through the prism of the current situation, I can appreciate how unthinkable it may seem that we can accommodate a population by 2030, that is, 30% higher than today, even though we have firm plans to double the rail

Page: 125

network over this same period.

But I do believe that we will begin to see a gradual but noticeable and perceptible improvement over the next five years. Why do I say this?

Capacity in our rail and bus network will grow over the next five years. Between now and 2017, the Downtown Line will open in phases and this will add significant new capacity to the east-west corridor. People living around the Choa Chu Kang and Bukit Panjang areas will have a new and faster route to the city centre by 2015. This will help to relieve congestion at Jurong East and along the East-West Line. Likewise, people in Tampines will have a choice of two MRT lines to get to the city centre while others along Bedok Reservoir and along Ubi will no longer need to rely on the East-West Line.

For the existing North-South and East-West Lines, we will complete the re-signalling work to increase capacity during the peak hours by 20%. We will also add about 70% more total capacity to the northeast corridor and 60% more capacity to the Circle Line with the delivery of new trains by 2015.

In total, what this all means is that during the busiest one hour in the morning, our assessment is that we will have the capacity to carry 70% more passengers into the CBD in five years' time compared to what we have today. I do not expect that there will be such a sharp increase in ridership. Hence, what this implies is that, for most commuters taking the train into the city, the journey will be less crowded by then.

During off-peak hours and weekends, commuters can also expect trains to arrive more frequently. I have already announced that during the off-peak hours, no commuter will have to wait more than five minutes for a train, except very early in the morning and very late at night. We are targeting to apply this requirement to the North-South and East-West Lines this year, and we will extend it to the other MRT lines by around 2015.

For buses, we have made good progress in rolling out the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, or BSEP for short. Since its launch last September, we have added about 90 new buses, improved about 50 bus services and implemented five new routes. Feedback has been positive. Recruitment of drivers permitting – again, local or foreign – I aim to accelerate the BSEP. This year, we will add about 190 new buses, which means that half of the 550 buses promised under the five-year programme will be on our roads by the end of the year. This will allow us to roll out more new routes, and improvements to more

Page: 126

bus services across the island. Commuters can, therefore, experience tangible improvements in shorter waiting times, less crowding, and better connectivity.

I have also asked LTA to see how we can tap on the resources of private bus operators in specific areas to accelerate this programme. LTA will be tendering some of the new BSEP routes, and I invite private operators to respond. We will contract out more City Direct-type bus services which run during the morning peak hours along the expressways into the city, and we will also work with operators to see if it is possible to extend such contracting arrangements to other new, shorter services, for instance, localised routes in estates that feed to MRT stations. If successful, this will allow us to scale up the BSEP beyond the 550 buses that the two public bus operators are committed to implement, and give us the resources to implement more new routes and other service improvements.

But even with the BSEP, commuters tell me that waiting times for buses at their bus stops are irregular. Sometimes, they wait a long time for their bus, and then two or three buses come together, especially during peak hours – a not-too-uncommon experience, judging by the smiles I see.

Therefore, even as we operate more buses, we will need to work with bus operators to improve the reliability of their buses en-route, so that commuters experience more regular waiting times. There are a number of examples, like in London and Seoul, of how they have implemented a framework and worked with the operators to achieve this. They shared with me how they have managed, with difficulty, to improve bus reliability over a number of years through an incentive-and-penalty system based on commuters' expected waiting times at the bus stop. Their bus operators have to adopt a new mindset, invest substantially in fleet management capabilities to monitor their buses, and make appropriate interventions so buses arrive at more regular intervals along the entire route. This is something that I am keen to try out and LTA will begin to trial this scheme on some services in the second half of this year.

But to derive the full benefits from the measures that I have just mentioned, we must also give more priority to buses on our roads. Today, we have about 180 km of bus lanes and about 200 Mandatory Give-Way to Buses scheme. Over the next two years, we will spend close to $50 million to improve bus reliability, such as adding another 30 km of bus lanes, increasing the Mandatory Give-Way scheme to another 150 bus stops, and quadruple the number of bus hubs from 10 to 40 so that more buses can pick up passengers at the same time. We will also step up bus lane enforcement as infringements will result in delays for

Page: 127

buses and commuters.

We will also improve train reliability. A train that has to be withdrawn from service leads to ripple effects like overcrowding and delays throughout the rail network and inconveniences commuters greatly. The Joint Team that was formed between LTA-SMRT has achieved some success over the past six months. Train withdrawals on the North-South and East-West Lines have decreased sharply. Today, we experience about one train withdrawal for every 1,000 trips on these two lines and we aim to improve this by about another 20% by the end of the year. We will improve further in subsequent years, and aim to halve the withdrawal rate to one train withdrawal every 2,000 trips as we upgrade the trains and place more attention on preventive maintenance.

Besides supply-side measures, we also want to encourage commuters to spread out their travel to outside the peak hours, and we have introduced several incentive schemes to do so. Commuters who are able and willing to travel off-peak on the SMRT network today can already save up to 50 cents off their rail fare if they exit at designated stations in CBD before 7.45 am. The scheme has seen some initial success, and we have seen about 3% to 4% of commuters move their travel period out of the peak hours. We will continue to see how this can be made even more effective, and will consider further improvements possibly later this year. Besides this SMRT scheme which gives an immediate discount, we also have a scheme for off-peak commuters to accumulate points for more sizeable rewards, of up to $200, when they travel off-peak. This is the "Incentives for Singapore's Commuters" scheme, or INSINC for short, and it has been quite popular, especially among the younger and more tech-savvy commuters. We have seen their membership grow from about 35,000 last October to 60,000 participants today. Our analysis shows that for this group, which is more interested in such an arrangement, about 10% of them has shifted from peak to off-peak travel.

We expect the effect of these schemes to continue to grow, as commuters take time to make arrangements to adjust their travel behaviour, and we will certainly continue to review them for greater effectiveness. In the mean time, we are also working with major employers and institutions, especially in the CBD, to inject more flexibility in their working hours, and to help them understand the travel needs of their employees. This will enable them to implement the necessary workplace practices to facilitate their employees to travel off-peak.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me conclude by drawing us back to the longer term plans for public transport. A possible 6.9 million population by 2030 is the

Page: 128

parameter that we are using to plan for our land transport infrastructure. We have sized the doubling of the rail network so that there is sufficient buffer for the projected or possible 30% population increase as well as change in travel behaviours. I know that commuters should find travelling more convenient with this expanded network and their journey a more predictable and comfortable one.

But we do not need to wait till 2030 for this to happen. Over the next five years, we will significantly increase capacity with additional trains, we will open a new MRT segment every year, and we will work hard to improve reliability for train and bus services. You have my assurance that I will do my utmost to improve our public transport system. I am confident that we will deliver an enhanced and higher quality transport system for Singaporeans in the years to come.