A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to kick off the debate on the White Paper. Today, I want to speak about three biases that inform both policy and political life in Singapore, and why we need to be aware of them – even if, as you will see, we cannot get rid of them altogether.

Over the last few weeks, we have had a series of announcements and my emotions have been on a roller coaster ride. I started on a high when the Marriage and Parenthood package came out; I got concerned when the Population White Paper came out and, finally, I felt better and reassured when the Land Use Paper was published.

Page: 86

First, on the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) package. I was most delighted at the recent announcements and I will tell you why. Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 2006, I have spoken many times on Total Fertility Rate (TFR). On legislating paternity leave, I never give up and I have spoken on this every year since 2007.

Three years ago, I asked if those starting a family could be given higher priority in their HDB flat applications. This has been done. Altogether, I am very heartened that several suggestions which I have made over the years have been considered and are now incorporated in this latest M&P package − paternity leave, maternity leave to be made more flexible, childcare leave, work-life balance, childcare centres, priority housing, and also funds for assisted fertility.

Having said all these, I know many of my colleagues here have also in their own ways pushed for these measures over the years. We should all acknowledge and celebrate these improvements to family life with this new M&P package.

I hope these measures will go some way to boost our TFR − I shudder to think that a possible headline in 2030 reads: "Singaporeans − an endangered species" or "The Last Singaporean projected in the year XXXX".

Three Biases. Madam, planning and implementing public policy is not easy. I know my own role in the entire process is a modest one. Listening to what people wants – that is important. Making speeches in Parliament, writing blogs, conveying the interests of different groups – and making criticisms of the plans that meet or do not meet these assorted interests – that is the easy part.

My parliamentary colleagues, whatever colour of shirt or blouse they wear, know this, but in the heat of elections, the temptation to crow like the rooster, claiming he makes the sun rise with his crowing, may be too great.

Bias Number One. The causes of things. That which follows after is caused by that which came before. What is the true cause of things in social life? I think as long as Singapore is the better for it, why does it matter who has the credit for it?

Yes, we know that voters need to know what Members of Parliament have done, and can do. Today's debate is about the joint future of Singapore, and it is a collaborative effort. So, I urge the debate to take a mutual interest approach, rather than paving the way for future credit claiming. Together, both sides of

Page: 87

the House can make Singapore better for our fellow Singaporeans. Madam, I make this point about the need for cool debate only because the issues that I, and I am sure several others, will bring up will be hot ones.

Madam, policy formulation is never easy − over time, we need to review and refine policies. I would like to point out two biases which started out with good justifications, but will need to be re-thought: anti-welfarism and pro-market mechanism.

Bias Number Two. Hard work leads to success; poverty is the result of lack of trying. Madam, we have, in the White Paper, made provision for up to a 6.9 million population. The public reaction so far has been less than euphoric, to say the least. The Government has been careful to say that more immigrants are needed because Singaporeans are getting older. Yes, we need growth and continued prosperity. But – there are many buts. But Singapore is already so crowded. But foreigners will take away some of our jobs. But do we really want to keep on growing?

Singapore is crowded as is. The current bottlenecks, especially transport, are already there. These are legitimate concerns that Singaporeans have raised and I share them too. So, before we go further, we need to resolve current strains on infrastructure, especially transportation − this is an imperative.

The second large worry − do we have enough land to accommodate potentially 6.9 million people in our island? While 6.9 million is a big number, when we examine it closely, we are already slowing down population growth rate from an average of 2.5% in the last 30 years to about 1.35% in the next 20 years. So, this is almost half the rate that we used to grow and, at these reduced rates, by 2030, the number comes up to a maximum of 6.9 million.

Rather than the "worst case scenario", we ought to consider this as the "hard constraint" that planners need to work with. Within this constraint, my most severe reservation about the White Paper is the ratio of citizens to non-citizens. Currently, we have less than two Singaporeans to one non-Singaporean, which is already low for me. But in future, this may potentially go down to less than 1.5:1. And then you ask, what is the point of it all?

So, I hope that the ratio can be maintained at current levels and not decline further by 2030. We do need to do more to have more citizens. Not just by getting new citizens in, but also by getting our people to get married and getting

Page: 88

our married couples to have more babies.

Singaporeans ourselves can and must respond and answer to this call too. At the same time, can we moderate the flow of immigration as we strive to grow our citizen population? Only within these figures can the notion of "maintaining a strong Singapore Core" make sense. At the same time, we need to continually review and continually enhance the privileges of being a Singapore Citizen. This must be on the Government's radar screen all the time. And together with this, let me ask squarely this question: why are so many people so unhappy with the Population White Paper? First, not many of us want more people, more strangers living in our midst. I have addressed that briefly in my remarks on procreation.

But let us go at it another way. Assuming that we do not get more people to get married and for those married to have more babies. Let me say this, suppose we keep the 6.9 million figure, but the Government promises more than enough trains and homes; a steady supply of good jobs if you can work, unemployment benefits if you cannot, and a top-up to your salary if you do not draw a high enough salary. Suppose, as long as you are Singaporean, you are assured of a place in the sun, even if there are more people, simply because this is our land, and the land of our parents. In healthcare, housing and education, you will have a safety net. How is that? Is that not a good thing for Singaporeans?

I know this may perhaps sound too good to be true and, indeed, I can sense some disbelief in some of my colleagues. But actually the PAP was born on the back of recognising that we have the chance of making our own destiny – we are for Singaporeans, our party political philosophy is one of capitalist socialism – the market does our bidding, so that we can slant our policies to favour and to help those who need it most.

At the same time, another one of our key principles is "self-help" − of making every man do his best and then assuming that a strong work ethic and personal ambition will be the great equalizer. This is sensible on the face of it, but over the years, this has hardened to an ideology of anti-welfarism.

As a result, we kept welfare to a minimum. We do our best to get every Singaporean a job, saying that a job is the best welfare, a view that I certainly agree with. For years, we have trumpeted our low spending on direct welfare and lack of unemployment benefits – if we do not work, we do not get paid; otherwise, we would get soft and we would be landed with a large government

Page: 89

deficit like many "soft" western models. Look at all the governments in debt, with no financial discipline and the ensuing bail-outs. We do not want to be in that state.

In public finance, we plan to the last decimal, because time is money and we do not build ahead of demand. We want to ensure our limited resources are all efficiently used. But this White Paper makes a fundamental change in the way we regard bricks and mortar. The Prime Minister has said emphatically that we are building ahead of demand − we cannot always plan perfectly, so let us plan generously.

Economically, it is not a wise thing to do so. But economics do not rule Singapore. We should recognise that this is a fundamental change because it shows that we are deviating from one of our most deeply-held past practices. This building ahead of demand is a move I fully support and I am glad the Prime Minister himself has stated this categorically. I also urge the Government to draw up intermediate milestones in five years, or 2017, or in 10 years, what will happen and communicate them clearly so that Singaporeans can better visualise and, for that matter, Singaporeans can also hold Government accountable to these milestones.

But I think we need the change to go deeper – we need to examine this strain of anti-welfarism in our political philosophy and see whether it still fits into the Singapore of the future – whether, when the ratio of Singaporeans to foreigners is a mere 1.5:1, the assurance of meritocracy, as we know it, is enough to secure the Singapore Dream for everyone.

What if success is not because of hard work but because of luck? What if it is because both your parents are rich, and can afford $1,000 in tuition each month? What if your grades are good, not because you work any harder but because you are chauffeured to school every day and back?

Conversely, what if poverty is not the result of laziness but of a large medical bill that wiped out your savings for the last 10 years? What if, no matter how many times you tried, how hard you worked, you never made your business work?

The chain of causation does not run straight and the more we do policy, the less we can be sure of how X leads to Y.

Page: 90

For the present, this means that we must continue to build and to subsidise and help the needy. For the future, we must give greater security to Singaporeans for them to feel that whatever hand life deals them, the government of the day is for them. We must resist our self-righteous, sanctimonious chant that "We do what is right, rather than what is popular". Sometimes, it is right to do what the people want, not because we think it is right, but because they do.

The Government does not always know best, it may only know what is efficient, what is rational, what costs the most, or the least. If we admit the long and uncertain chain of causation, we would give more, even if it does create messiness, even if it does allow some gaming of the system. I know this runs some risks but I believe this is a risk that we can now afford to take.

Bias Number Three. Growth is good, More Growth is Better. And this brings me back to growth. We can take risks now because of the strong growth of the past. Growth is, indeed, the bedrock of our success in the past. This is the one key justification for the Population Plan of the future. I am sure we do not want a 2030 headline to read "Singapore − a country in decline". That we need more people is partly because we need growth. Growth is good because it gives us a better life. And so, Government must also illustrate clearly how as a result of the population policies, an intended objective is to create better job opportunities and higher salaries for Singaporeans. And then make it happen.

Indeed, Singapore has grown from mud flats to metropolis because of economic prosperity. And now from metropolis to what? What is growth for? On the surface, this is an easy question: growth is for Singaporeans of course. But what about the many foreigners who live here too? Is growth for them too? And this is the second reason people are unhappy with the Population Paper.

We see this tiny island as very much a zero-sum game. There are already many foreigners in Singapore. Can we have more? For my many friends in SMEs and also sectors such as in F&B, hospitality, services, these sectors all need more foreign workers as well.

Now, wearing the hat of the CEO of NTUC FairPrice, I have been receiving many calls and requests from the public and community to have more supermarkets closer to their homes − they also want longer trading hours for their convenience.

Page: 91

We employ close to 9,000 staff. But we have close to 900 vacancies. As is, our workforce comprises about 80% citizens, 10% PRs and 10% foreign staff. Our dependency ratio actually allows us to get up to 45% foreign staff but we choose not to. NTUC FairPrice's management team, for that matter our entire team, is solidly Singapore Core and we will have it no other way.

But like many other businesses, the manpower shortage is hurting us. Our staff is feeling the strain. We cannot open new supermarkets as fast and as many as we would like in response to what the public wants. But we do need and we do appreciate the 10% foreign staff that is part of our employ. They, together with our 80% local staff and 10% PR staff, all help us provide the level of service and convenience to the public.

Still, we do from time to time get criticised for employing "so many foreigners" when we employ only 10% of the 45% that is allowed. And yet, we are 900 staff short.

Yes, we will continue to leverage on IT to help mitigate our manpower shortage and up our productivity. I use this example to show why this issue needs to be calibrated more finely and to speak up on behalf of all SMEs here who, like NTUC Fairprice, collectively employ thousands of Singaporeans – it is not just a them/us dichotomy.

Now, let me wear my Member of Parliament hat, I still need to answer: what is growth for? Economic growth is a public good. It is non-exclusionary. Foreigners who come here, too, are under protection of law, and have the same rights to infrastructure. Do we not provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of maids, bus captains, nurses and wait staff from overseas to help us grow our economy and also for our own convenience? Is our growth not for them too? Do they not ride on trains? Is Singapore also not a place for them to build their dreams?

It gets harder. What is growth for? Is it just for food in our stomachs and roof over our heads? What about "happiness"? Depending on your temperament, either $2,000 or $10,000 is required for happiness. More insidiously, research has shown that relativity is important in happiness. Ten thousand dollars is not going to make you happy if someone less hardworking, less gifted, less driven than you, is making more than you.

Happiness is as much a personal, as well as a practical issue. And so, too, then is growth. But as policymakers, we need to take care of the practical issues

Page: 92

of happiness.

Three years ago, in 2010, I had in this very House cautioned about the growth strategy and called for an "ethical limit" to growth. In 1985, Herman Daly, a renowned economist, had then already pointed out that the limits of growth are determined neither by physics or economics but by morality.

Madam, a large part of my speech has been on what is the "Singapore Core" that we want, and how we are going to get there. The first is an issue of national identity; the second is a matter of politics. But really, an answer to both can only be found in our sense of values.

So, again, what is growth for? It is apparent by now that I have no answer. But I do have a sort of list of "anti-answers" – I know what growth is NOT for.

It is not an end in itself – it is not to meet some 4% target that we have written in stone, that growth is always a necessary condition for the good life.

It is not to make sure that everyone has the four Cs in life. It is not even about building flats or ensuring that each one of us has affordable health care or a seat on the train. It is not about material things – but neither is it a completely personal choice. Because this is a land we all share, not a piece of private property.

This is Singapore, and we need to discuss the substance of our collective action. This is what the on-going National Conversation is about. Madam, this is not an easy point in our history – because the things we value are so diverse. To decide in a joint direction, we need a collaborative, open-ended and intellectual approach to addressing a political and moral question.

Let us all focus on the outcomes that these three papers seek to achieve. By all means, all of us here should raise ideas and suggestions and not simply criticise for the sake of scoring points. If there are valid and good suggestions and worth a review and a rethink, I urge Government to be receptive and be prepared to do so.

On both sides of the House, we need to review our biases – the first, to think that what follows is necessarily caused by what went on before. This is the stuff that leads to grandstanding and populism.

Page: 93

The second – ideological welfarism – denying help to the needy and downtrodden, with the mistaken justification of upholding work ethic and freeloaders.

Third – the pursuit of growth without regard to social goals, such as income disparity and social cohesion. This creates a country without a soul, a population without an identity.

Mdm Speaker, I know that these biases have already been recognised – I put them starkly here so that our debate can be constructive and that we remain open to new ideas. Only then can we truly see the bright and shining future of Singapore, as we continue to build a Singapore that we all love and where we are all proud to be called a Singaporean.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio) (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mdm Speaker, I had a sharing session on the Population White Paper with 60 grassroots leaders and residents on the third day after it was released, to discuss the various assumptions, proposals and the implications to us. The group comprised Singaporeans from various age groups, communities and backgrounds. Their top three concerns are: first, the impact of 6.9 million population; second, basic needs of the people in 2030; and third, integration issues between Singaporeans and foreign immigrants.

The first concern is the impact of 6.9 million population. People asked: can Singapore really accommodate a population of 6.9 million by 2030? Even so, will we be filled to the brim and will there be "room for further development"? Minister Khaw Boon Wan had later clarified that 6.9 million is the "worst case scenario". What some people failed to understand are why we need immigrants and why there would be a "worst case scenario" if they come, and not an "everything-is-okay scenario" or a "best case scenario". Why would it not be a "80/20 scenario" where there is a 80% chance that we would reach the projected population and a 20% chance of wait and see? The foreign arrivals would probably not behave like what we say in Hokkien "no come no come, one come

Page: 94

all come".

During my school days in the 1960s, we had a population of over 2 million. During my children's school days in the 1990s, our population increased to over 4 million. So in 2030, our population might increase to 6.9 million. We understand that the projected population and the various goods and materials that needed to support it highlighted the growth challenges we face under the current usage of goods, materials and technology. Therefore, the number of foreigners we need is a matter of trade-offs. Deputy Prime Minister Teo had explained what it meant for us of the trade-offs and how the White Paper was trying its best to strike a balance between the different trade-offs.

Second, the basic needs of the people in 2030.The Government of the day must fulfil the basic needs of the people − be it in the 1960s, 1980s or 2030 − whether it is housing, transportation or other daily necessities. When everyone sees the overcrowding in public transport, the long queues for public housing and the rising cost of living today, it is very easy for them to associate what they see now with what it will be like in 2030. This is a natural response. Everyone hopes the Government can solve the current issues and let everyone regain confidence. To them, the current issues are more pressing than the vision. We import everything, we grew from having nothing to having everything, and this did not come easy. So they asked: can we still enjoy the same quality of life in 2030? Will the price of housing and COE be beyond the reach of their children? These are serious questions.

Third, integration issues between Singaporeans and foreign immigrants. While it is crucial for the Government to plan for the infrastructural needs of an increasing population, the "heartware" is equally important to ensure that Singaporeans co-exist with new citizens/foreigners and live harmoniously and bond together. At the same time, we want to have more human touch in Singapore. The current integration programme has not been as effective as desired. If we want Singaporeans to be united as a whole and support the population policies, they need to see a vision where they can "share the fruits of growth". This is particularly important for those who may feel marginalised by the influx of foreigners. In reality, some Singaporeans feel that they have been disadvantaged when competing with the new arrivals.

(In English): Here are four suggestions put forth by the residents. It is proposed that at this year's National Day Rally, Prime Minister Lee can again invite Nanyang Polytechnic School of Interactive and Digital Media to present to us the 2030 scenario, the best scenario, a Singapore with 6.9 million people will still be a Singapore with quality housing, transportation, infrastructure and

Page: 95

good jobs, as illustrated by Deputy Prime Minister Teo just now.

Two, the Government should give periodic reports in 2020 and 2025 to reassure Singaporeans that the plan of growing our population is implemented with constant fine-tuning and adjustment.

Three, with the inflow of new citizens and the fact that out of 10 newly-wed couples, four are having foreign spouses, the Government needs to review our current integration to make it more effective. Currently, the agencies integrate new citizens through various programmes, from learning journeys, audio-video presentations, sharing sessions, citizenship ceremonies, invitation to grassroots events and national events. For better integration, more social gatherings and activities can be organised to promote better communication and understanding between locals and citizens. Understanding of local concerns and sensitivity can also be shared. The Government must or should consider granting PR-ship and citizenship to those who have been waiting for PR for a long, long time despite the fact that all the rest of the family members are already PRs and citizens.

Four, with two-thirds of the jobs created going to PMETs and with slower GDP growth, the Government has to ensure that those Singaporeans who cannot catch up with the competition will not be marginalised with the inflows of new citizens.

Conclusion. During the dialogue sessions, some asked, "Why call this Population White Paper a White Paper?" Some jokingly mentioned that it was raised by the men in white, thus White Paper. However, as we know, growing Singapore's population is a long-term national issue that calls for constructive debate between all stakeholders. Whether it is the Government, the Opposition or various segments of our people, we all have very big stakes in our future and we must be ready to listen and be persuaded to adjust our positions after listening. More need to be done to explain the rationale and implications of the Population White Paper so that Singaporeans can understand our demographic challenges. I support the Motion.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on this White Paper. This is an important document as it sets the way on how we will organise the future Singapore society. In short, Singapore's survival and a perpetuation of the kind of life we have been used

Page: 96

to. In this regard, Madam, I must say I am uncomfortable at the pace at which we are discussing such an important document. Although the White Paper has been published and various quarters were consulted and many Singaporeans have given their views, many more do not understand the need to augment our population and how the various strategies are to play out. More importantly, the rationale and the genesis of a possible 6.9 million population need to be explained further as this big figure headline has generated much anxiety and angst.

Perhaps, this is the reason why there is nothing but negative sentiments abounding from the public. Whether it is speaking to the average Singaporean on the street or listening to Singaporeans giving their views on interviews by our radio stations, there is little buy-in to the proposed population growth to almost 7 million people. Madam, it is, therefore, not surprising to see even Yahoo News reporting fury from some Singapore Citizens to the future projected population to be slightly more than half, or 55%, being Singaporeans.

Madam, most of us accept the necessity and contribution from foreigners brought to the Singapore socio-economy. Let us be honest. Without the vital contribution of the many foreign resident workers, the Singapore skyline, our way of life and, in large measures, the manageable cost of living, would be very different. Very simply, without the presence of foreigners – many of whom are here to augment our workforce – makes the local kopi-tiam food much more costly.

That said, the pace of foreigners landing in Singapore over the past few years has caused some concern, some tension. Yet, we know that a xenophobic Singapore will spell an early end to our economic growth and potential. Foreigners are blamed for any and everything that can go wrong in Singapore, sometimes without any basis. For instance, when news broke of the fatal tragic accident in Tampines, some people on the Chinese version of Twitter suggested the cement mixer truck driver to be another reckless Chinese driver!

We need to compartmentalise and explain better the issues that have been a bugbear for many Singaporeans. The manner that the Government is tackling rising property prices, competition of places in schools, crowded public transport and other societal changes associated with a larger population must be convincing. If we cannot do this well at this stage, I feel that the angst and tension will only worsen if we are to move forward with the strategies outlined in the White Paper.

Page: 97

Many Singaporeans are sceptical that we may be able to keep the Singapore Core with slightly less than half of the future anticipated population. It is another point that I suggest the Government explain better. Our core will shrink, given our current situation where couples marry later, delay or not having children, or staying single. We are simply not replacing ourselves. The White Paper has laid out various strategies that will help us grow our pool of core Singaporeans. It will be apparent that this will not be at a pace that will help sustain a viable economy. Therefore, we need parallel strategies to keep our economy going and to keep our competitive advantage.

Singaporeans aspire for good jobs and with good pay. Our education system has been evolving and changing to prepare our students well. Our young folks will enter the workforce prepared and on good footing to take on good jobs. But, once armed with good education and work experiences, the typical Singaporean worker is also highly sought after. This is worrying, in the light of the McKinsey Global Institute Report. In the report, there would be a global demand for about 16 million to 18 million highly educated qualitative staff. Singapore workers would then be in demand and the only question is: will they be open to move elsewhere?

Madam, judging from the first responses to the White Paper, I am concerned that the realities, the dynamics and the co-relations of a shrinking population, ageing society, workforce numbers plateauing and eventually fall, are still not apparent to many. As sure as we want to attract qualified people to come here, our people, along with this group, will be sought after by many other economies elsewhere.

The scenario of a small working population has some realities that are frightening. The local SMEs will leave when they cannot find skilled professionals and workers. Cumulatively, together with the same well-educated Singapore Citizens being seduced to work overseas, will not augur well for us. The shrinking workforce will face pressures in surely having to share and carry a higher tax burden. This may exacerbate the situation further. At the very least, we need a diverse economy with a dynamic workforce to continue to be attractive to foreign investors to set up shop here and vibrant enough for our SMEs to build capabilities and eventually propel themselves into other markets. I might have painted an alarmist scenario of a twin exodus from the Singapore economy of both SMEs and MNCs, but once that begins to happen, we are finished.

Page: 98

What can the Government do to help Singaporeans consider the proposals in the White Paper better? Mdm Speaker, allow me to make some suggestions.

In spite of the many attempts to cool the red-hot property sector in Singapore, the prices of real estate remain stubbornly high. The amount of cash-over-valuation (COV) remains high. I was told the average COV of a 3-room HDB flat in my constituency, Clementi, is more than $23,000. The amount of COV for bigger flats is reportedly even higher. The high COV is in spite of many cooling measures and the announcements of many more HDB flats in the pipeline.

Mdm Speaker, the investment sector is already abuzz with expectations that one of the main beneficiaries of the White Paper would be construction and the real estate related companies. Generally, the average citizens are concerned that with a population of 6.9 million, the immediate pressure would be on the number of HDB flats available and the prices they would have to pay. In spite of the assurances given by the Ministry of National Development, the people are not convinced that there would be adequate flats to meet the rise in demand for housing brought on by its population. More needs to be done to convince the Singapore citizenry on the property front.

One of the first major debates during my first term in Parliament was on the Motion of whether Singaporeans are stayers or quitters when the going gets tough for Singapore. Mdm Speaker, I now ask the same of the 532,000 PRs amongst us. The White Paper envisioned an annual intake of 30,000 PRs which translates into another 200,000 PRs in addition to the 532,000, making it 732,000 PRs in 2020. Of this number of PRs, how many are PRs of convenience? How many are here just because of the environment for employment security that we provide? How many would cash out and sell off their HDB flats, their condos or even their landed properties, the moment the going gets tough? How many are here after getting their PRs?

But on the other hand, Mdm Speaker, I have come across many Singaporeans with PR spouses. Some of whom their children are Singaporeans. In recent years, Singaporeans have clamoured for clear differentiation between Citizens and PRs, this has naturally resulted in some disenchantment of Singaporeans with PR spouses. To increase our core population of Singaporeans, perhaps the Government can consider allowing this group of PRs into Citizenship, joining their spouses and their Singapore-born children. There may not be many of them, but going by the demographics and the

Page: 99

statistics of the White Paper, every PR will count towards the core.

To conclude, the Government needs to convince Singaporeans that their anxiety and angst over the current day issues of a larger population with knock-on effects on property, schools and transport will be addressed, and to explain the rationale in careful detail the need for an even larger population in the future. Yes, there is a national anxiety and some angst but, instead of letting out this National Moan about the projected population numbers, there should be a National Vigour to address the Vulnerabilities of Singapore. Perhaps then, we might look at the "numbers" needed with more objectivity and a renewed urgency to move forward on borrowed time.

Our future rests with the three keys: the White Paper has stated that the Heart of our Nation is represented by our Singaporean core. I would like to say that for a Strong Singapore and a cohesive society, we need a strong heart and, better yet, a Big Heart.

The second point mentions that our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities to meet Singaporeans' hopes and aspirations. If our population and workforce cannot be in adequate numbers to sustain an economy for the lifestyle we choose, then our hopes and aspirations will be but a distant and desperate wish.

The third key takeaway is to keep Singapore a good home with high quality living environment. If we fail to do this, it simply means that many may make their homes elsewhere and many more will not even come, let alone become PRs for the possibility of us integrating them and making them part of our core. This is my worry, the projected conversion of 17,000 to 25,000 to Citizens from the 30,000 PRs yearly may even tail off, making that strategy to augment our core fall in the medium to long term. This effect on augmenting workforce numbers, sustaining a meaningful tax base, a sustainable economic environment will not be foreseeable and Singapore will certainly stop dead in our tracks. We need not worry about crowded trains or expensive properties then. Madam, with this, I support the White Paper.

Mdm Speaker, this debate may be one of the most critical Parliament will have. It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future

Page: 100

as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore.

Since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, we had 4 million in the year 2000, and in 2010, 5 million. The share of Singapore Citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly four are foreigners. Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege, wondering what happened to the Singapore they grew up in and whether they have a place at the table.

The Workers' Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge. The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity; it will also place us on a course towards needing even larger population injections in the future, which we do not believe is sustainable. While we accept that trade-offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets. Let me elaborate.

First, what is a Singaporean "core"?

A key plank of the White Paper is its claim that it is proposing to keep a Singaporean "core" in the roadmap. It is proposing that Singapore Citizens form 55% of the population as at 2030, which is significantly down from the 62% currently. Fifty five percent is too close to the all-important threshold of 50% majority. Further, a closer reading will also show that the 55% includes new citizens. Singapore Citizens are projected to make up 3.7 million at 2030. If we were to look at the number of new citizenships given out since 2004, and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what percentage of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Would not this figure be below 50%? Is this what the Government means by retaining a Singaporean "Core"?

The White Paper states that "Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of the nation", with the word "heart" printed in bold italics. It further states that: "to be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core." Mdm Speaker, instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore Core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family. This can only be cultivated over time, in institutional settings, such as schooling, national service and community service. A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who

Page: 101

grow up in and with Singapore.

Therefore, the policy of "topping up" shortfalls in our total fertility rate with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean "core" is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with new citizens we have, with a Government department looking into the matter. Madam, you yourself as a backbencher had raised concerns about how new citizenships were given out and whether tests should be instituted to ensure that the new citizens understood our way of life. Speaking personally, I count some new citizens as my friends; while they make good contributions to Singapore's economy, I know they see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.

Accordingly, we do not agree with the Government's definition of what would constitute a Singaporean "core". Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.

Next, Madam, focus instead on Total Fertility Rate (TFR) recovery. How, then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean TFR. The Government has invested somewhat in marriage and procreation incentives. However, so long as immigration remains the Government's key plank for population growth, the measures to improve TFR will remain half-hearted, since one can always resort to immigration top-ups.

Why is Singapore a global champion in low fertility rate? There are structural problems which have not been addressed. These include lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and others. The Government seems resigned that TFR is not within their power to raise, saying it "hopes" to reverse the trend. However, other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.

For instance, South Korea, too, was facing a low fertility rate. However, it has been successful in reversing the declining trend and its TFR recovered by 0.15 in five years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just "hoping", the Korean government recognised that procreation was being discouraged not by individual choice but due to structural institutional factors. The Korean government then set explicit hard targets to remove institutional obstacles to boosting TFR. These targets centred on providing institutional support for

Page: 102

family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents' share of child-rearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework. The commitment and approach of the Korean government are worth some study.

My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate.

Next, Madam, promoting Singaporean-friendly immigration. We are not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans per se. One way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. As noted in the White Paper, 40% of marriages today are between a Singaporean and a foreigner. These non-Singaporean spouses are much more likely to integrate and be committed to Singapore. They will interact with Singaporeans and be parents of Singaporean children.

Currently, many Singaporeans apply repeatedly, year after year, for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status. Many are on Long Term Visit Pass which makes employment very difficult. Has the Government studied how far this pool of foreign spouses in Singapore is an untapped economic resource? Could this be a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour?

Next, do we really need a population of up to 6.9 million? Since the release of the White Paper last Tuesday, the public has been fixated on largely one issue – the prospect of Singapore having a population of 6.9 million. The Government has justified the population growth projection largely due to its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3% to 4% from now to 2020, and 2% to 3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The Government also justifies these targets by citing the ageing population and the declining old-age support ratio.

The Workers' Party does not endorse proceeding headlong onto the Government's suggested path. Underlying its plan is that the population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation's quality of life. To quote a population expert, Frederick Meyerson, 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". Second, immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve

Page: 103

our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants.

What about land resources? The implications of planning for 6.9 million on our land use are instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Ministry of National Development shows how little room we would have left to move. Under the plan for a population of 6.9 million, we will use up significantly more land. From 2010 to 2030, we will consume much more of our land bank, leaving the balance land under the "Others" category down from 14% to just 4% for future generations to cope with.

In short, are we simply kicking a big can down the road for our grandchildren?

At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution. It is still not too late now to continue the discussion with Singaporeans on this fundamental issue, instead of pushing this White Paper through.

Madam, on our part, the Workers' Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the Government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the Government is proposing. This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days.

We believe that Singapore should work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5% to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5% to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by at least 1% per annum, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the Government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development,

Page: 104

preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.

This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it. We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate.

Madam, our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the Government's projections, in exchange for a reduction in GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singaporean identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds.

Let me conclude: what the Government is proposing in this White Paper is to aim for its GDP targets and grow the population to achieve it. The Workers' Party believes that the well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the Government's proposal. Is it worth it?

The Government's White Paper is entitled: "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore". While sustainability and dynamism are indeed important, we believe that the Government has gotten these priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, we should have "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore".

For these reasons, the Workers' Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population and will oppose the Motion.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. The release of the Population White Paper is indeed timely – matters of birth and ageing are not dealt with by near-term planning or sudden course corrections. They take years to effect, so we have to begin to shape today the Singapore that we want to see years later. I congratulate the Government for having the courage to raise this difficult but important subject for debate – it was always going to be controversial, but we need to tackle the issues head-on without pushing the burden to future generations.

Page: 105

Ever since the release of this Paper, the media and public have focused on the "magic number" of 6.9 million people by 2030. Many are worried about what this would mean in terms of the influx of foreigners, changes to their lifestyle, increased competition for education, jobs, health care and transport. They find it difficult to embrace this vision of the future, particularly in light of the unresolved pain points resulting from rapid population growth over the last 10 years. To some, it is unthinkable to accommodate any more people on this small island of Singapore.

But what is less often discussed is the hard truth behind the headlines: That if birth rates remain low, and with no immigration, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo shared, the ratio of working-age citizens to those above the age of 65 would reduce drastically from 5.9 to 2.1 by 2030. If we do not address this situation, we will head towards the dire consequences associated with a shrinking and ageing population.

The White Paper sets out a roadmap to steer Singapore away from the path of stagnation and decline, and paints a vision of how our nation may continue to be a vibrant global city to accommodate the likely population trajectory. We have heard much about the "hardware" improvements, such as infrastructure developments, but little on "software" considerations, such as the impact on our national identity and social cohesion.

Mdm Speaker, one of the biggest concerns that many people have expressed is how we can ensure a strong core of Singaporeans. The White Paper projects that the ratio of citizens to total population may be diluted from 62% to 55%, with the number of foreigners ballooning from 1.5 million to 2.5 million, by 2030. These numbers are alarming; they conjure up images of Singaporeans being crowded out of their own home.

There will be even greater dependency on low-skilled foreign workers in 2030, to deliver services in many areas of society – construction, manufacturing and social services. This heavy reliance on foreign labour carries with it a high risk.

As economies in these workers' countries grow and develop, will a low-skilled job in Singapore continue to be attractive? What is the social impact of having so many of these foreigners with different social and behavioural norms, on our culture, security and way of life, as they live in close proximity to us? We should re-assess how some of these jobs are rewarded to make them attractive

Page: 106

to Singaporeans.

The Government has said that their projection of 6.9 million is a "worst case" scenario, to guide infrastructural development so that we are well provided. This implies that determined and sustained interventions are needed to put Singapore on a different trajectory. To this end, I would like to call for urgent action to ensure a stronger Singaporean core in our population strategy. I offer two key priorities for the Deputy Prime Minister's consideration so that we do not arrive at 6.9 million people.

First, take bolder steps to improve Total Fertility Rate.

Second, tap on our own talent pool, especially amongst the economically inactive women and older workers.

First, I would argue that reversing the decline in birth rates should be the key plank in our population strategy. As the White Paper states, I quote, "Strong families are the bedrock of our society, through which we pass on our values and sense of belonging from one generation to the next." Although the ultimate decision to have children lies with the individual, the Government should take bold steps to support child birth and the raising of children. We should not be discouraged by what we have observed in East Asian countries, but thrive to learn from the Scandinavian countries and France, on how they reversed declining birth rates with strong pro-family and work-life balance measures provided by their governments.

Mdm Speaker, the recent Marriage and Parenthood package is definitely a step in the right direction, but it needs to be much more transformational to materially change the trajectory. We need to develop a culture in which would-be parents are motivated by the sheer joy and excitement of parenthood, and encouraged by the persuasive pro-family employment practices and easily accessible childcare.

Singaporeans work amongst the longest hours in the world, and one of the biggest concerns amongst couples contemplating parenthood is how they will juggle work and family commitments. We must change this. So, I propose that the Government set clear guidelines on pro-family employment practices as an integral part of Tripartite Guidelines on Fair Employment Practices. Employers should put in place progressive HR policies that are pro-family, and recognise that they need to cater to the changing priorities of their employees at different

Page: 107

stages of their lives, whether they are men or women.

Flexi-work arrangements should be readily available and widely adopted, where employees are allowed to request for a change in the number of hours, when and where they work. And employers should measure job performance in terms of outcomes expected of the jobs rather than in terms of the time an employee spends in the office.

The Government should help companies, especially SMEs, with the implementation of flexi-work arrangements and debunk the myth that flexi-work is detrimental to productivity. Many companies have experienced how sensible work-life policies make good business sense, as these lead to increased employee engagement and morale, low turnover, and access to a wider talent pool.

Mdm Speaker, the recently announced childcare subsidies are useful, but couples struggle to get a place for infant-care or childcare to start with. To ensure accessibility, the Government should consider setting building guidelines for developers to dedicate space for childcare centres in places of a certain density in residential and commercial hubs.

Our Primary schools should offer after-school care programmes within the school compounds so children have the option of remaining in a safe and supervised environment up to 7pm. They can rest, receive supervision to complete their homework, or participate in enrichment classes. Apart from better aligning the child's school hours with their parents' working hours, this arrangement will help promote family time in the evening as all the homework would have been done by the time everybody reaches home. Just imagine – no homework and no tuition after dinner!

Mdm Speaker, even as we agonise over the declining birth rates, we should be reminded that 12,000 babies are aborted each year – this amounts to about one-third of total live births. Is there room for the Government to step up efforts in counselling women who wish to terminate their pregnancies? Can the Government play an active role in encouraging the adoption of children from unwanted pregnancies?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to turn to my second topic: to meet the manpower challenges highlighted by Deputy Prime Minister Teo, I would like to champion that employers tap into our local talent pools more effectively,

Page: 108

particularly with respect to women and older workers.

Despite recent gains, Singapore's women labour force participation rate remains low at only 57.7% compared to that of men at 76%. Sixty two thousand five hundred female university graduates, and 474,000 women of all education backgrounds below the age of 60, are economically inactive.

As for older workers: more than 900,000 Baby Boomers will enter their silver years between now and 2030. With advances in healthcare and standards of living, many Singaporeans over the age of 65 are likely to be still healthy and active. "Sixty-five" may be the new "45", but with plenty of experience on offer. And many may still be keen to work, earn a wage, and feel that they are still contributing to society.

By structuring work and compensation with more flexibility, I am confident that we can tap into the ready pool of women and older workers. Incentives should be given to companies to re-design work arrangements necessary to cater to them. The Government should also consider offering special incentives to employers who hire, for example, women returning to the workforce, to help offset the cost of on-the-job training for these women.

Finally, I would like to draw attention to the profile of our projected workforce in 2030, where two-thirds of Singaporeans are expected to be filling PMET jobs, up from the current 50%. Whilst it is comforting to know that our people will be shifting to higher-end jobs, the question always remains: Will Singaporeans have the best jobs? Many consider the current Employment Pass system somewhat liberal in its assessment of foreigners vying for attractive PMET jobs – if that remains unchanged, how can we ensure that Singaporeans are considered first for the best opportunities? Could we ensure that employers invest to train Singaporeans for good jobs in order to qualify for employment pass for their foreign PMETs?

Mdm Speaker, this White Paper is pivotal to the vision of a future for all Singaporeans – those of us who decide on it today will set the pace for our children tomorrow. Is there only one answer to our population challenge, or can we, through breakthrough thinking and bold ideas, find a viable solution for Singapore to continue to be the vibrant global metropolis of the next generation, one where Singaporeans feel they belong, and are proud to call home? I believe we can do more to maintain a strong Singaporean core in our population strategy. With this, I support the Motion.

Page: 109

Mdm Speaker, the Singapore pledge is an oath of allegiance to this nation. My eldest son and my second son, together with many other students across the island, recite the pledge every morning. They end off with the following creed, "to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." Members of this House will agree with me that this is neither youthful idealism nor an ideological aspiration. It is a promise made by all Singaporeans to their fellow Singaporeans, a promise to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, our Government has placed its nation-building emphasis on our economy and the relentless pursuit of GDP growth. Singaporeans have been reminded time and again that a healthy GDP will bring about a better life for all. The negative consequences will be minimised and relieved with the onset of economic growth.

It was on this note that between 2008 and 2011, our Government widened the door and allowed the large influx of foreigners and immigrants into this tiny nation state. The Government argued that we need a critical mass in our workforce to ensure the vibrancy of the economy. However, Singaporeans today face a widening income gap, a rising cost of living, increased social friction, unhappiness at the direction this country is taking, worried about their employment prospects. Singapore ranks consistently near to the top in any international benchmark on GDP per capita but sadly, many people do not seem to be happy. What went wrong?

Mdm Speaker, this is my understanding of the White Paper. In order for Singapore to have critical mass for its continued economic growth, there is a need to attract more immigrants and enlarge the foreign workforce, especially in light of the current Total Fertility Rate of 1.2. This will ensure that Singapore continues to stay relevant in the midst of globalised pressures. I am for a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore, buttressed by a Singaporean core, a Singaporean Singapore. Here, I would like to express my grave concern on the approach that the Government is adopting and the direction that this Government is bringing the country.

Madam, as a parent of three, I can empathise with the fears, discomfort, anxieties and insecurities that many Singaporean parents share about the future that is in store for their children in a 6.9 million Singapore. The fears, anxieties and insecurities are not irrational. You can feel it, especially so when

Page: 110

the rate of immigration is exceeding the capacity of the country's infrastructure. Despite the many pleas by the Government to not worry, there is no doubt that parents are concerned about the future of their children as the Singaporean core gets increasingly diluted. What will happen to the Singapore that we have grown up to know and loved? In 2030, is Singapore still worth fighting for? These are concerns that the Government must adequately address. Singaporeans must believe in Singapore again.

Mdm Speaker, The Economist observed in 2006 that the world's lowest fertility rates are in super-crowded Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore. That suggests the role density plays in affecting the fertility rate of a country. Given that Singapore will become increasingly denser by 2030, this is an issue that we must address.

A recent study in 2010 also indicated the negative correlation between density and fertility. Professor Francis T Lui from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology pointed out that "the small size of Hong Kong's residential quarters is likely one of the factors causing the low fertility rate." This is also consistent with the finding in a recent paper by Murphy, Simon, and Tamura (2008), which provides evidence indicating that population density, or price of space, is negatively correlated with fertility rate in the United States.

Madam, what is my point? In 2030, there will be a denser Singapore and as these reputable studies point out, a reduction in Singapore's total fertility rate. The most worrying aspect of this is the increase in the non-Singaporean portion in the population, especially with immigration top-ups. The Singaporean core will be compromised. The fact is we will be further from a Singaporean Singapore in 2030. In the 18 years leading up to 2030, I think we will see this worrying trend developing before our very eyes. The Government has thus far failed to address this relationship between density and fertility, which has wide ranging implications on the identity of Singapore and Singaporeans in 2030. As things stand now with this White Paper, there is a fundamental disconnect between the aspirations of Singaporeans and their children with this 6.9 million figure.

Madam, it is stated in this White Paper that one of the three key pillars for a sustainable population is that of Singaporeans forming the core of our society. The best way or approach to maintain a Singaporean core that is strongly Singaporean is to improve the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). I believe that as long as there is the easy and enticing option for immigration top-up, there is the moral hazard of taking the path of least resistance that will end up with half-hearted promotion of TFR recovery. And sadly, I can say that this is already

Page: 111

happening.

It is natural for two individuals who are in love to get married and procreate. It is the dream of every couple to start their own family and see their own children grow up under their nurturing care. Many surveys have indicated that most Singaporeans want to get married and have more than two children. However, circumstances pose as obstacles to them.

The current Marriage and Parenthood Package has its criticisms. Critics mentioned that this package is an expensive third-round of band-aid solutions that do not address the structural problems causing the low TFR in the first place. Among the structural problems are (i) the lack of work-life balance and (ii) the lack of financial security due to the escalating housing costs and the long housing wait for newlyweds.

Madam, my work experience as a marriage counsellor has provided me with many insights and enabled me to understand very well the worries, concerns and fears of young Singaporeans who intend to marry and start a family as well as the problems faced by married couples. The most common issue raised is the factor of time.

Couples whom I have come across in the course of my work shared with me that while they have anticipated the demands of work and marriage on their family life, this lack of time has often taken a toll on them and prevented them from carrying out their spousal roles and parental responsibilities. The emotions and psychological needs are affected and the quality of family life is consequently compromised.

I acknowledge that the Government has expressed its support for policies to improve work-life balance and increase flexi-work options. But I believe that the Government can do more and they must make a stronger commitment in this area.

Mdm Speaker, the House may wonder, what is the price that Singapore may have to pay as a result of half-hearted social policies? In a study on emigration attitudes of young Singaporeans in 2010 conducted by the Institute of Policy Studies, it pointed out that, I quote:

"In the endeavour to retain Singaporeans, it is important for policymakers to complement the current emphasis on national obligations with policies that would encourage stronger family and friendship ties, which emerged as critical

Page: 112

factors of rootedness. It is also necessary for policymakers to address the work-life balance in Singapore, which came up as a key area of dissatisfaction in the study."

Our next generation cannot afford for this generation of leaders to get this issue wrong. A Singaporean Singapore is at stake here and the stakes are high.

Mdm Speaker, the Government should commit to reducing the number of working hours to 40 hours a week. I have called for this in one of my previous speeches in this House. This can be done by improving productivity by adopting technological innovations and changing our work practices. I am of the view that, if the Government is serious about improving the work-life balance of Singaporeans, then it must lead the way through action and legislation. The Government should increase the support and create stronger incentives for employers to implement better work-life balance practices and flexi-work arrangements. The civil service should set the example for the private sector to follow.

Mdm Speaker, apart from a healthy work-life balance, ownership of a house is also high on the priority list for couples, especially newly-weds. A house provides a comfortable and conducive environment for the development of a family nucleus. Social scientists have long traced a connection between housing and fertility. When a home is scarce or beyond the means of young couples, couples delay marriage or have fewer children.

Newly-wed couples also find it challenging to own a house due to high costs. On this matter, I would like to propose the Government to grant a housing grant of $10,000 for the birth of the first child, $15,000 for the birth of the second child and $20,000 for the birth of the third child. The availability of these grants may help to lessen the financial burden in their consideration to start a family. According to Seth Sanders, director of the Maryland Population Research Centre at the University of Maryland in a New York Times article published in 2008, I quote: "If you lower the cost of housing, you're going to lower the cost of raising a child."

Madam, in conclusion, population is a complex issue and there are no easy answers to such a multi-faceted issue. No efforts should be spared to improve Singapore's total fertility rate and the infrastructure to cope with the projected increase in our population. The Government must know that this is an irreversible process and generations after may suffer missteps this Government

Page: 113

is taking in 2013. Madam, with this, I would next speak on the Motion in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.]  Mdm Speaker, in a Berita Harian report dated 30 January 2013, the Minister in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, gave assurances that the Prime Minister has promised to maintain the balance in racial composition after the Government presented the White Paper on population. Dr Yaacob then said that the Prime Minister spoke about this twice. Madam, I would like to ask the Government two questions regarding this matter.

Firstly, what are the steps or efforts that will be taken by the Government to maintain the balance in racial composition so that the proportion of Malays is not affected or does not decrease? This is seeing that the total fertility rate of Malays has gone down year after year, and that the Prime Minister has previously said during "Our Singapore Conversation" last December, that the Government have really tried and worked hard to attract Malay talents from Malaysia and Indonesia, but the numbers are very small each year. My second question is what is the number or the rate of Malay immigrants that is being planned for, or estimated by the Government, to maintain this balance in the racial composition.

Madam, one of the reasons contributing to the decrease in the percentage of Malays is emigration. When answering my question in Parliament on how many Singaporeans have renounced their citizenship from 2001 to 2011, as well as the breakdown according to each race, Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Teo, said that around 10,900 Singapore Citizens have renounced their citizenships, where the average is around 1,000 per year. The breakdown according to race is as follows – half, that is, 500 are Chinese and the rest, around 500 are a combination of Malays, Indians and other races. Madam, even though the answer does not state the actual number of Malays, but from what I observed, the number is quite high.

Madam, when I was studying in Melbourne, Australia, for three years, I found many Malay families who have emigrated there. After speaking to these families, I found that among their reasons for emigrating was that they felt that they were not given equal opportunities when they were back home in Singapore. Madam, I refer to the front page of yesterday's Berita Minggu with the headline "Aspirations to Build a Better Future". This article reported that the chairman of the Suara Musyawarah committee, Mr Sallim Abdul Kadir, said that the conclusion of the participants from a recent forum is about the issue of "Equal Opportunities" and not the issue of discrimination. Later, he said that

Page: 114

"This is a new issue that he has seen that has become a topic of discussion during the dialogue session held by the Suara Musyawarah committee".

Madam, perhaps the issue of equity is something new for the Suara Musyawarah dialogue session. However, from my own interaction, experience and observation, the issue of equity has existed all this while among the Malay community in Singapore. In March 2012, in a speech by a Member of Parliament, Mr Zaqy Mohamad, during the COS debate, he spoke about the discussion between some Malay individuals who asked about the Government's policy on the role or position of Malays in the Singapore Armed Forces, and he requested that the Ministry clarified this matter.

My colleague, Ms Sylvia Lim, had also queried in this Chamber whether there is a Government policy that gives exemption from National Service to Madrasahgraduates. In the meantime, I myself have asked whether there is an ethnic quota for the admission of students in public universities in Singapore.

Madam, these questions were asked because these are the feedback that my Parliamentary colleagues and I receive from the Malay community. From such feedback, we have to admit that the issue of equity is still lingering in the minds of the Malays.

Madam, the Government's White Paper titled "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore" explained that to build a dynamic Singapore, we must have a sustainable or substantial population. We, the Workers' Party, think otherwise. We believe that to achieve a sustainable Singapore, it will require that a dynamic population or society be built.

Lastly, my view is that to build a dynamic society and sustainable Singapore, "inclusivity" – that is frequently mentioned by the Government – must be applied correctly and sincerely in the sense that everyone, regardless of race, language or religion is given equal rights in all aspects of life in our country. Madam, with that, I end my speech by saying that I oppose this Motion.