Senior
Last edited by Arcachon; 02-02-13 at 22:35.
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/01...n-white-paper/
Even grassroots leaders criticise Govt’s population white paper
February 1st, 2013
Speaking at a Singapore Conversation event last night (31 Jan) where even grassroots leaders were criticising the Population White Paper released by NPTD on Tue (29 Jan), labour chief and deputy chairman of People’s Association (PA), Mr Lim Swee Say, acknowledged the current angst surrounding overcrowding on public transport, a tight housing market and an influx of foreigners.
Defending the White Paper, Mr Lim said, “Just imagine if 10 years ago, we had a Singapore Conversation to talk about one day 10 years from then… population may reach 5.4 million, then start to put in place infrastructure, housing, MRT. Today, we will be much better off, isn’t it?”
By saying this, he has indirectly admitted the oversight in the PAP Govt’s planning which led to the current overloading of Singapore’s infrastructure.
The population in Singapore was around 4.1 million 10 years ago. However, in the course of 10 years, Singapore’s population shot up by 1.2 million (nearly 30%) to 5.3 million last year.
From 2004 to 2012, Singaporean population increased by 7% from 3.1 to 3.3 million whereas the foreign population (including PRs) increased by a hefty 83% from 1.1 to 2.0 million:
And now, the White Paper is projecting the Singapore population to hit 6.9 million by 2030 with further foreign influx. By 2030, under this projection, almost every other person in Singapore will be a foreigner with nearly a 1-to-1 ratio.
Mr Lim said the White Paper is a way to “look ahead and ask ourselves what kind of future we like to have and how do we get there, and along the way, what kind of challenges we are going to face”.
Yesterday’s event, organized by PA, was attended by about 100 grassroots leaders.
Serangoon Citizens Consultative Committee vice-chairman, Poon Mun Wai, said, “I’m very disappointed with this 6.9 million figure. It’s logically and emotionally not acceptable.”
Another grassroots leaders asked if the government is “really listening” to Singaporeans. She was opposed to letting in more foreigners into Singapore.
RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and CCs (community clubs) are all grassroots organizations that come under the purview of the PA. PA is a statutory board, tasked to take care of all the grassroots activities in Singapore.
The relationship between PA and PAP is very close. PA’s chairman is none other than the PM himself, who is also the Secretary-General of PAP.
Former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew once said in a dialogue that the Chinese have been sending teams of officials to study Singapore for years. To illustrate a lesson the Chinese learnt, Lee Kuan Yew said:
“They discover that the People’s Action Party (PAP) has only a small office in Bedok. But everywhere they go, they see the PAP – in the RCs (residents’ committees), CCCs (citizens’ consultative committees), and the CCs (community clubs).”Typically, important positions in the various grassroots organizations are held by PAP members themselves.
Music of the night
Garmen in Sg is so kind compared to hk .. Can buy just buy lah, why procrastinate
Ride at your own risk !!!
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/02...in-parliament/
A S’porean requests his MP to voice his objection to the White Paper in Parliament
February 2nd, 2013
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
PLEASE VOICE MY OBJECTION TO POPULATION WHITE PAPER: A SUSTAINABLE POPULATION FOR A DYNAMIC SINGAPORE, RELEASED IN JANUARY 2013
Dear MPs Yaacob Ibrahim, Lui Tuck Yew, Denise Phua and Edwin Tong
My name is Xxx Xxxx Xxx. I am a resident of Moulmein Kallang GRC. I am aware that the parliament will have a session to discuss the Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore, released on January 2013.
I write to request that you, as my representative to the parliament, to voice my objection to the plans proposed in the said paper.
My request is based on my disagreement with the plans set out in the paper as a Singaporean. The sentiment is personal and not politically driven. The implementation of the plans will adversely affect my daily life and the lives of my children.
Before you write me off as noise, or like what some on the social media have suggested, disgruntled, xenophobic or any of the likes, I will say that I am not. You may even argue that I am not a typical Singaporean as my profile and background is rather different. I had the privilege of being given the best in life by my parents and country, been through early education overseas, private schools and even sharing my Alma matter with all 3 Prime Ministers. Although I am a son to a born and bred Singaporean father, my mother, spouse and even myself were not born in Singapore. So I can hardly be classified as xenophobic and have no reasons to be. I had the privilege of working in our 3rd generation family business, multi-nationals and now founded and run my own company. I also have a beautiful family, a loving wife, one boy and a girl (born on 26 August 2012 and no earlier!) in a comfortable home. Nothing too fancy, but I guess I am truly blessed and do not have anything to be disgruntled about. In fact, most of my family and Singaporean relatives are mainly avid PAP supporters over the years. So why should someone like me object the White Paper?
I have gone through the white paper in detail and I cannot find merit in it. Even if you can argue the merits, where do we go from 6.9 million in 2030? The raison-d’etre for the white paper’s existence can be, in my point of view otherwise, achieved in many other different ways that are more conducive to the population at large. Not easy but nonetheless achievable with a competent people and government. And that we are or certainly can be.
As it is, in the past 3 years, I have
• avoided the malls as I no longer enjoy shopping due to the crowded environment
• been having more trouble securing a parking lot for my car when I bring my family out
• spent much more time on the roads in bumper to bumper traffic on the way to work and home
• heard more from my staff about their harrowing MRT (or lack of) journey to work
• see the green lungs of the city which I loved and enjoyed turn into monstrosities of buildings
• lost my heritage as the many places I been to, schooled in and lived in are mostly long demolished or re-purposed
If the paper were to pass, I can only expect more of the above. Considering that my wife is a professional heading up a regional team in a renowned global company and myself a business owner, we are more likely than others to benefit financially from the proposals, yet I am certain that it will not be worth the sacrifice you have asked from our children and fellow Singaporeans.
My son was born in Singapore, but like me (up till 21 years of age), has dual citizenship currently. Although both my wife and I are very keen for him to make the decision independently, as I did, when he turns 21, we hope that he joins me and his peers to serve national service. However, if the white paper is to pass, I will have to question if any young Singaporeans should even be conscripted, when nearly 50% from our neighbourhood could well be at war with us in an invasion. I mean, the government’s entire notion on continuing national service for our young men is that there is still risk for war, right? Planning to have a high percentage of foreigners in our midst will certainly be considered a risky proposition by many if not all countries. Are we not contradicting ourselves here, asking our men to sacrifice for the nation’s security and then make a mockery of it for a few more dollars?
Even former Minister Mentor, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has publicly stated in 2008 that he felt 5 to 5.5 million population in Singapore is the optimum. Mr Lee is a well respected adviser of the Singapore government and I strongly believe this particular piece of advice should be heeded.
Last but certainly not least, will the endorsement and eventual execution of the white paper be constitutional? Whether so or not, with the current amount of feedback to your government, social media or simply in the coffee shops, can you be certain you have the moral authority to execute the plan without a national referendum?
Thank you for reading my letter and for the reason above, I, xxx xxxx xxx, a Singaporean citizen from birth, vehemently object the white paper in totality and any attempts by my government to systematically increase the population from the current 5.3 million.
I expect you as Members of Parliament representing my Moulmein Kallang GRC to speak on my behalf.
Yours sincerely
XXX XXXX XXX
NRIC: SXXXXXXXX
Junior
http://www.yourhealth.com.sg/content...march/page/0/1
Health insurance cost to rise from March
Sunday, Feb 03, 2013
The Straits Times
By Magdalen Ng
SINGAPORE - The cost of health-care insurance will spike sharply from March when premiums increase on the back of enhancements to MediShield coverage.
Annual premiums for MediShield, the national health insurance scheme, will increase by between $17 and $251 partly as coverage is now being extended to 90 years of age.
A person aged 40 on his next birthday, for example, will have to pay $105 a year, up from $54 previously, a 94 per cent spike. Someone aged 85 on his next birthday will see an increase of about 2.4 per cent from $1,123 to $1,150.
The Government is providing a one-off Medisave top-up of up to $400, for all insured Singapore citizens.
MediShield is a basic plan that is aimed at providing Singaporeans with coverage for large hospital bills at the Class B2 and Class C levels.
There is also the option to increase the coverage with a Medisave-approved integrated shield plan, which can include private hospitals in their coverage. Integrated shield plan premiums can be paid using Medisave.
The integrated shield plan providers are AIA, Aviva, Great Eastern, NTUC Income and Prudential.
In line with the MediShield premium increases, private insurers have also upped their annual premiums for shield plans. The increases depend on the policy and age. The average increase by each insurer is about 20 per cent to 50 per cent.
The insurers say the premium rises take into account the increased coverage provided, which includes $100-a-day claims for acute psychiatric hospital care for up to 35 days a year and claims for short stays at medical emergency departments.
Coverage has also been extended to inpatient congenital and neonatal treatment for newly diagnosed conditions.
In e-mail responses to The Straits Times, the five insurers offering integrated shield plans cited rising medical costs and the high incidence of claims as main reasons for their premium increases.
Different insurers have also included unique enhancements to their plans.
Great Eastern (GE), the leading insurer here, said the average claim cost per insured member increased by 50 per cent between 2008 and 2011.
NTUC Income's senior vice-president and general manager for group and health, Mr Pui Phusangmook, noted that since the last MediShield premium increase in 2008, the average payout per claim has risen by 12 per cent per year.
"The revisions are necessary to sustain our IncomeShield plans and meet the needs of policyholders over the long term," he said.
"We have not made any changes to the premiums of most of our main plans for over four years, and adjustments were overdue in the face of rising medical costs and longer life expectancy."
He added that as Singapore's first provider of integrated shield plans, NTUC Income customers tend to be subject to fewer, if any, exclusions and therefore more likely to make claims.
Mr Daniel Lum, director of product and marketing at Aviva Singapore said that integrated shield plans offered by the various insurers vary not just in terms of premiums but also benefits. "Rather than simply comparing premiums, consumers should look at the benefits to ensure the plan they've selected best suits their needs."
GE's chief product officer Lee Swee Kiang noted: "The public should be mindful not to switch insurers or plans too easily as they run the risk of not being covered by the new insurer should they have an unknown pre-existing medical condition."
Customers will be informed of the changes by their insurers.
[email protected]
Senior
The report noted: “In anticipation of currency appreciation and sustained capital flow into Asia, most of the restrictive residential market cooling measures will remain intact throughout 2013. Governments will stabilise markets to avoid social unrest caused by soaring residential prices.
http://www.propertyguru.com.sg/prope...s-here-to-stay
Look like property price have only one way to go, that is up.
Senior
http://lansner.ocregister.com/2012/1...chartnov29-12/
WHAT I THINK: I’ve been at this mortgage brokering business for 25 years. In my earlier years borrowers would be mortified and embarrassed to broach the subject of foreclosure. Short-sale wasn’t even a term back in the day. Recent times have certainly seen changed values. A recent study by ID Analytics and JZ Analytics found that 32 percent of respondents say that homeowners should be able to walk away from their mortgages without any consequences. This entitlement mentality, if it continues to fester, may ruin the very fiber of America homeownership. Nobody will want to invest in mortgages, not even the U.S. government. Pride, responsibility and fair dealings continue to fade away as important values to too many Americans. It’s sad enough that some borrowers have not been able to pay their monthly mortgage payments. Then came “the won’t pay borrowers” — those that have the means to pay but refuse to pay. The ultimate chutzpah now goes to those pathetic borrowers that think there should be no consequences for walking away from their home loan. Yes, the banksters have been so horrible on so many levels. But, come on. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Entitlement thinking is nothing short of mental cancer. Chapter One of the homebuyer education course that HUD recently announced will be mandated for FHA borrowers should start with the definitions for accountability and consequences. Maybe this can get us back on track to the good old days.
This is why CM7 is there to stop you from buying.
The one that lose is not the banker, the home buyer, it the saver.
What can they do to home buyer, the banker when property price nose dive?
Last edited by Arcachon; 03-02-13 at 17:01.
Camper
How come this thread is now infused with the white paper clippings?
Yee ha! Did I tickle your funny bone?
Senior
White paper, Black paper, if still can buy go and buy. CM8 will be even worst.
COE for buying property.
You need to buy a piece of paper in order to buy property.
Senior
The World is very small, was having a conversation over the internet with my brother half way across the earth. What the US is doing affect everyone, don't see the world standing on the ground, see it through google earth and you will understand how small it is.
Huat Ah.........
Newbie
Isn't ABSD same like COE already?
Originally Posted by Arcachon
Senior
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/no-...teid=rss&rss=1
The Rich just get Richer.
Some affluent buyers are getting the keys to their new home without putting a penny down.
It’s 100% financing—the same strategy that pushed many homeowners into foreclosure during the housing bust. Banks say these loans are safer: They’re almost exclusively being offered to clients with sizable assets, and they often require two forms of collateral—the house and a portion of the client’s investment portfolio in lieu of a traditional cash down payment.
The American are not afraid you buy, they are afraid you don't buy.
Half way round the earth, they are afraid you buy.
Last edited by Arcachon; 03-02-13 at 17:27.
Senior
Nope, you don't have to get a piece of paper in order to buy property.Isn't ABSD same like COE already?
COE to buy property mean, every month you go and bid for the piece of paper.
Cat A - MM
Cat B - 1 Bedroom
Cat C - 2 Bedroom
Open - Any size you like.
Senior
They still have a long way to zero.
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/03...r-endorsement/
AWARE: Why no public consultation on White Paper before sending it to Parliament for endorsement?
February 3rd, 2013
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
It is commendable that the Government has released a Population Paper setting out its proposed population strategy from now till 2030. This forward planning and transparency is most welcome.
However, AWARE is concerned that the Government has once again focused on economic growth, rather than the well being of its people, as the main determinant of Singapore’s population size and rate of growth.
AWARE is also disappointed that there is no provision for thorough public consultation on the proposed population strategy. Why is the Government targeting for the Paper to be endorsed by Parliament within just a week of its release? This is unduly hasty given the major implications of the proposed strategy. Singaporeans have in the last few days shown their anxiety and unhappiness about these implications. More time must be given for people to ask questions and express their concerns.
The Paper indicates that to achieve certain GDP targets, Singapore’s population in 2020 must be 6.5 million and reach 6.9 million by 2030.
AWARE believes that the primary objective of Singapore’s population policy should not be economic growth per se, but the well being of people in Singapore. GDP growth can be one factor, but not the ultimate factor in population considerations. The critical question that the Paper should have addressed is “What is the optimum population to achieve maximum well-being for all members of Singapore society?”
Well-being goes beyond GDP growth. It encompasses a broader range of considerations including fulfilling jobs and rising incomes across-the-board, economic security, equitable distribution of wealth, universal access to affordable healthcare and education.
By focusing solely on GDP growth, The Paper fails to mention, let alone address, issues of inequality and lack of social mobility. This omission is worrying considering that the last ten years of liberal immigration policy has resulted in wage erosion at the lower end and given rise to a widening Gini Coefficient and wealth disparities.
Of greater concern is what the omission reflects about the Government’s general approach to managing Singapore. The many appeals for a fairer, more equitable and less materialistic society made by Singaporeans in the National Conversation and the public consultation on population issues, including AWARE’s submissions, seem to have fallen on deaf ears.
Despite receiving clear signals that public sentiment on this issue is strong, the Government is fixated on GDP growth through population expansion. The cost to society can already be seen in the claustrophobia and diminished quality of life that many Singaporeans complain about.
The proposed population strategy raises many issues which require consideration and debate (see Annex A for some issues that AWARE is concerned about). The research that must have gone into this is not reflected in this Paper. Many different scenarios must have been studied. The Government should make all the research and arguments available to enable a thorough and rigorous discussion of this issue.
We urge the Government to conduct a proper public consultation on this Paper and to share the research and data behind the Paper, before seeking endorsement of the proposed policy in Parliament. Members of Parliament should be given the time to get the views of their constituents before they debate and vote on the Paper.
What is needed is rigorous debate and shared ownership of the decisions made about Singapore’s future.
AWARE
(Association of Women for Action and Research)
————————-
AWARE had made two submissions to the National Population and Talent Division on Population, Marriage and Parenthood issues. For the full text of our submissions, please refer to:
http://www.aware.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/AWAREs-population-recommendations-to-NPTD_31Oct12.pdf
http://www.aware.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/Suggestions-to-NPTD_update_24-July.pdf
For media queries, please contact us at [email protected] or 98201102.
Annex A
Social Justice
What will the impact of a 2% growth in the foreign labour force have on wages at the lower end? How will the Government ensure that the Gini Coefficient and wealth disparities will not continue to widen?
While the majority of Singaporeans may be in PMET jobs, what about those that aren’t? What support will there be for those that find themselves in the lower end jobs?
Will the government consider providing the following social supports to mitigate the effects of a more crowded and competitive place?
a) Unemployment insurance
b) Universal healthcare through insurance with government subsidizing the premiums of those who cannot afford this
c) Universal childcare benefits that do not favour the rich e.g. tax reliefs / exemptions
Impact of Higher Population Density on Families
High density living gives rise to feelings of insecurity and increased pressure and competition. This will in turn have an impact on individuals’ fertility decisions. Has the Government factored in what impact higher population density will have on the Total Fertility Rate? What measures will be taken to ensure that the goal of Building a Strong Singaporean Core is not adversely affected by high population density. What assumptions about Total Fertility Rate is the government making when doing its projections?
Getting More Residents in the Workforce
At any one time, more than 30% of females are out of the workforce. A lot more can be done to get them into the workforce, which will reduce the need for importing foreign labour.
The Paper mentions that the Government will try to get more residents into the workforce but does not set any targets for this.
What assumptions have been made about this factor?
Ageing Population
The paper refers to Declining Old Age Support Ratio as the number of citizens between 20-64 years of age that support a citizen above 65.
Why does the analysis limit the support-givers to citizens only? Is this an accurate way of looking at it? Should we not take into account the total workforce (including foreigners) between 20-64 rather than just citizens between 20-64? If we do take into account the foreign workforce in calculating the amount of support, the number in 2030 will be extremely high as more than one third of our workforce will be foreign workers.
Stability
If in the future, 36% of our workforce is foreign, will we find ourselves in a situation where we are overly dependent on foreign workers? Our reliance on foreign workers must be kept at a level that is healthy and sustainable. We have a responsibility to protect and uphold the dignity of the foreign workers who come here to seek a living, and contribute much to our economy and society. How do we ensure that we provide decent conditions of work so that we become a country of choice for foreign workers?
Alternative Scenarios
The Paper gives one option – that of 3-5% growth between now and 2020, and thereafter 2 – 3% growth between 2020 and 2030. Why has the Government chosen this particular model? What about other scenarios?
Office Boy
This association is a bit strange.
Population discussions have been underway for a while.
How public do you want it to be?
When we say foreign now, it doesnt mean foreign forever.
Foreigners will soon become Singaporeans.
Just read the entertaining Sunday Times today to discover why people choose to be Singaporeans.
If they know the current numbers making up Singaporeans (ie foreigners Singaporeans vs Singapore born Singaporeans), they will probably be shocked!
Aberthen, what else can we do ? Clone babies ?
DKSG
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...ndset-20130204
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 04, 2013
Change employers' 'instant noodles' mindset
I SHARE the concerns of Mrs Lillian Lee ("Ensure local grads are employable"; last Wednesday).
Employers are unwilling to give local graduates the opportunity to be employed and gain valuable experience.
I have been a housewife for a decade, so I could raise my children.
I decided to further my studies so I could rejoin the workforce.
I graduated two months ago after three years of study.
To my dismay, no employer has been willing to give me a job, despite my sending out 80 applications.
I lowered my expectations as time went by, from managerial posts to executive roles, then to assistant positions and, finally, to internship opportunities. Yet, I received no job offer.
Employers are less willing to train newcomers these days, as they expect new hires to perform once they join the company.
I am answering the Government's call to rejoin the workforce, but if employers do not change their "instant noodles" mindset, how can fresh graduates get jobs?
Singapore's population could hit 6.9 million by 2030. By then, it would be even harder for local graduates to find jobs, given the increased competition.
Jocelyn Huang Aixuan (Ms)
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...alent-20130204
Straits Times
Published on Feb 04, 2013
Firms unwilling to pay for talent?
INDUSTRIAL psychology can provide insights on this complex human resource issue of the knowledge era ("Do local grads lack 'quality' by Ms Wee Rui Qi; Jan 22, and "Ensure local grads are employable" by Mrs Lillian Lee; last Wednesday).
While demanding highly educated, skilled and motivated employees, companies often complain that current employees and job applicants are not sufficiently educated or skilled.
But companies often lower the salaries and benefits of skilled local employees while searching globally for replacements who can be paid even less. Professionals are probably confused as companies seem to demand the finest but inexpensive talent who can contribute strategically but are yet subject to micro-managing.
This desire of employers to control employees more and pay them less is consistent with the move from the industrial age to the knowledge era.
While the workforce in Singapore is in transition to the Internet age, there are more jobs requiring technical tertiary qualifications for more Singaporean graduates.
But are employers willing to provide the high pay, frequent training and decision-making autonomy for highly skilled workers? A shortage of skilled workers may reflect the fact that there are insufficient employees willing to earn low salaries for long working hours, not that there is a lack of skilled graduates from local universities.
The National University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological University are internationally renowned for their engineering and technology courses. New universities specialising in technology are also being introduced.
Statistical evidence for employers' opinion of a lack of qualified employees can be found in the relative surplus or shortage of local university graduates catering to the increase in engineering and other professional jobs each year.
A shortage of skilled workers can raise salaries for qualified employees, but replacing local professionals with lower-paid foreigners has the opposite effect and can discourage our undergraduates.
With the transfer of digital information at broadband speed, jobs can be easily outsourced overseas. This threat of outsourcing can discourage existing employees from demanding pay increases, while encouraging potential applicants to avoid such vulnerable job positions and pursue less rewarding careers that cannot be outsourced.
Tng Cheong Sing (Dr)
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/03...-overwhelming/
Tan Cheng Bock: 6.9M projection is overwhelming…
February 3rd, 2013
The White paper on population growth has caused great anxiety amongst Singaporeans. They are concerned that as Singaporeans will make up only 55% of the total population in 2030, what will the country become? Easily the balance can tip us to become minorities in our own country.
Singaporeans are currently trying to cope with the daily overcrowding of trains and buses, higher health costs, competitions for homes and jobs etc. The various measures just released before the by-election have yet to be felt. Thus this package of population change has caught them off guard. The back log of infrastructure should have been addressed and made right first. Such a move would have instilled confidence.
What is worrying is when PM admitted the govt did not have 20/20 foresight over the last influx of immigrants to explain the infrastructure lag. This have cast doubt on the previous planning.
I quote ST Sat Feb 2, page D5 (Jessica Cheam):
“In 2007 , when Singapore’s population was 4.6 m….URA revised its planning parameters …………based on – to 6.5m, up from a 2001 projection of 5.5m”How then did our infrastructures of housing, transport i.e, road and rail, social and health amenities be so woefully short when 2001 forecast was already 5.5m?
This is worrying as the govt has total control over immigration?
PM has assured that this time round the planners will create a greater buffer in its planning. Be that as it may, the projection of 6.9m is overwhelming and should be thoroughly debated.
Most, if not all people, seek a comfortable space for their family. We do not want to risk driving away our own.
Tan Cheng Bock
03/02/2013
* Tan Cheng Bock was a Presidential candidate in the 2011 Presidential Election.
Senior
If a lot of companies don't give local grads the on job experience, where will they get their skills from. I remember in the UK, if you want to get a job as a fresh grad, the employers must spend a lot of time and jump through a lot of hoops why they should employ a foreigner instead of someone from the EU.
Junior
http://www.todayonline.com/commentar...ystem-be-ready
Will our healthcare system be ready?
BY Jeremy Lim - 04 Feb 2013
TODAYonline
The recently-released Population White Paper projects Singapore’s population to potentially increase to 6 million in seven years’ time and 6.9 million by 2030. The Government has sounded the reassurance that healthcare infrastructure is being ramped up and “the number of acute hospital beds will increase by 2,200, a 30 per cent increase from today”.
Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, over the weekend, reaffirmed that his ministry ensures its efforts align with the Government’s planning norm so that by 2030, “we will make sure that we have sufficient capacity to meet the population at that time”.
Is this enough?
The chart shows the number of acute hospital beds per 1,000 population in Singapore in 2011 and 2020 (projected based on the White Paper), compared with select Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Two observations jump out: Firstly, Singapore today has far fewer beds compared to many other developed countries.
Secondly, even with 2,200 additional beds in 2020, because of ongoing population growth, Singapore will increase by just 0.07 to 2.27 beds per 1,000 population, still far below the OECD average today of 3.4 acute hospital beds per 1,000 population.
However, unlike housing or transport, Singapore’s immigration-fuelled population growth may impact healthcare less severely. Age profile matters in health, and the conventional wisdom is that new citizens, Permanent Residents and migrant workers should be relatively young and hardly move the needle in terms of demand for specialist services and hospital beds. It is the elderly who form the largest users of in-patient care.
That said, there are still effects that warrant consideration as Singapore debates the White Paper.
USE OF HEALTH SERVICES
While newcomers may not tax in-patient services significantly, they will need primary care (general practitioners) and emergency services just like everyone else. Singapore already has over-burdened polyclinics and Accident and Emergency Departments across the country, and this will likely push waiting times up even more.
Let us re-examine the conventional wisdom. While newcomers may barely need inpatient care, their relatives will. My experience in the private sector has been that some expatriates of Asian origin do bring their parents to Singapore for healthcare.
Of course, they seek private healthcare but remember we are an inter-related ecosystem and explosive demand in the private sector will undoubtedly lure more doctors out of the public sector and also increase healthcare costs nationally.
Our healthcare system is carefully balanced on a knife’s edge. For efficiency, we hover around the sharp inflexion point on the demand-waiting time graph, and even very small increases in demand can cause waiting times to spike dramatically.
See how waiting times in the Emergency Departments can be “magically” cleared by discharging a handful of patients from the wards. Conversely, a few patients refusing to be discharged in the wards above can wreak havoc in the emergency room below.
OVERCROWDING AND MENTAL HEALTH
There is substantial literature on the effects of crowding in urban settings, and while the data is not conclusive, many academics generally agree that overcrowding is associated with increased levels of psychological stress.
It will be vital for policy makers to consider mental health issues in determining what levels of population densities are appropriate, and specifically make provisions for the lower socio-economic segments of society. As a Cornell University report highlights, “exposure to poor environmental conditions is not randomly distributed and tends to concentrate among the poor and ethnic minorities”.
INFECTIOUS DISEASES RISK
Related to high population densities is the risk of faster spread of infectious diseases. One paediatrician raised concerns that we would see more outbreaks of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease, influenza and the like. More epidemics, and more severe ones.
Also, would 6.9 million people make it harder to react and respond to a SARS-type outbreak? Are our public health crisis responses readied?
The health and healthcare effects of rapidly growing the Singapore population are not insubstantial. It is simplistic to consider only slivers of healthcare resources such as in-patient beds or the size of the healthcare workforce, but even the state of these do not reassure compared to other developed countries.
To allay Singaporeans’ concerns, the Ministry of Health should reveal the detailed projections and plans it has developed to cope with the multi-hued effects of population growth, including not just physical but also psychological health and pandemic preparedness.
Dr Jeremy Lim has held senior executive positions in both public and private healthcare sectors. He is currently writing a book on the Singapore health system. This is part of a series on health policies in Singapore.
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/04...-our-children/
The Population Debate: What are we bequeathing to our children?
February 4th, 2013
If a target of 6.9 million people is what the government hopes to achieve, it is not an exaggeration to say that in 2030, Singapore will become a marketplace where sojourners come when the times are good to ply their trade and make their money. But it will no longer be a home where citizens live and strive to develop it into a better place for their children. With all the over-crowding and Singaporeans becoming an obvious minority in their own country, there will not be many true-blooded Singaporeans left who are willing to die for their country and defend it against all external threats. It will no longer be a home. It will no longer be a country. It will just become purely a business centre.
In the recently published Population White Paper, one of the pillars for a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore is for Singaporeans to form the core and heart of Singapore. It is argued that by increasing the fertility rate and importing immigrants in large numbers, we will be able to the achieve this. Unfortunately, this is not so.
Whether Singaporeans can form the core and heart of Singapore depends on whether Singapore continues to remain a home and a country for its citizens.
A country is a place where a person can grow up, a place which provides him with an opportunity to work so that he can provide for his family. It is a community which can support him emotionally, socially and provide a sense of culture. In return, it makes him feel enough love and obligation to his community, his country and his fellow men to want to do something for his nation and defend it.
Thus, what is needed for a strong society is the spirit of community and the desire of its members to be part of the community.
Generally, Singaporeans who have lived and grown up in this country and performed national service duties have no problem having this feeling of community. They have been conditioned since young to queue, to live with other races and not to litter. We speak Singlish and enjoy curry, durian, teh tarik and rojak.
We cannot build a core of Singaporeans with a heart when new immigrants flock into Singapore in large numbers. When foreigners come in large numbers, they find security in their own community. This makes it harder for them to assimilate and become part of the larger Singapore community. It is even more difficult when, with modern technology and communications, they are still connected by easy travels, internet, and cable TV to the motherland from where they had come.
Instead of one people, one country, we will end up with having many people, many countries.
It makes matter worse when these people are seen as competitors for jobs and housing.
Do We Need 6.9 Million People?
Dr. John B. Calhoun, an ecologist who had studied rats in an overpopulated situation, found that over-crowding is not a good thing for those rodents. He demonstrated that as the population density increased, social behaviour degenerated. The rats suffered from infectious diseases, some became violent (and even form gangs), whilst most became withdrawn and passive. Some mounted male and female rats indiscriminately.
In an increasingly crowded environment rats are incapable of the social behaviour that would allow them to produce the next generation. Our own drop in fertility should be a sign that we are getting over-crowded and we should decrease our population instead of increasing it.
Though rats are not human beings, the biological needs for space and resources in both human and rat behaviours are the same in influencing behaviours in both species.
What then should citizens expect when Singapore becomes over-populated? We must expect noise levels to be increased, more traffic congestion and more pollution from smoke emissions and waste. Singaporeans must put up with having to manoeuvre through crowds in public areas, long queues for a lot of services and the squeeze on public transport. There will be very little space for fun and recreation as all these places will be packed during the weekends. Trying to get across the Causeway during the weekends and going to the airport will take much more time than now.
When there is over-crowding, people become more susceptible to catching and spreading diseases. With more people travelling and immigrants going and coming back from their countries of origin, new bugs are likely to be introduced into the country.
Moreover, the control of an outbreak of infectious diseases in a dense population will be harder to manage.
Over-crowding also reduces fertility and causes stress-related diseases like ulcers, enlarged adrenals, chronic heart disease and mental illness.
On the social side, there will be higher rates of crime, drug abuse, suicides, accidents and juvenile delinquency.
As Singaporeans, it is our right to want a quality of life. We certainly do not want our country to be “an environment without natural or cultural resources: people who do without pure air, who do without sound sleep, who do without a cheerful garden or playing space, who do without the very sight of sky and the sunlight, who do without free motion, spontaneous play, or a robust sexual life.” This is what is described by Lewis Mumford in his book, The Culture of Cities. The sad part is, as he said “you may live and die without even recognising the loss.”
We don’t want to live like over-crowded and stressful rats.
Our children used to have empty fields to kick a ball around. As more and more developments take place, such spaces are getting lesser and lesser. As the population grows to 7 million, there will be pressure to use up such green spaces to build roads, dwellings, industrial sites and other infrastructure.
Singapore used to have one of the best beaches in the world. The senior citizens now would remember places like Changi Point, Mata Ikan, Labrador, Coney Island, Sister’s Islands, Pulau Blakang Mati, etc, where they could go for quiet picnics, BBQs and fishing. Later, much land was reclaimed and East Coast Park and West Coast Park were developed. Pulau Blakang Mati became Sentosa. However, as more and more people come into Singapore, these places have stopped being idyllic and are now venues of over-crowded mass gatherings. What was optimum for a population of 4 million will have to cater for 7 to 10 million in the future.
Labrador Park is smaller than what it used to be. Many of the flora and fauna that used to thrive there no longer exist. The marine life that used to be so diverse can now only be seen on old Singapore stamps.
In the case of Chek Jawa, we have see how hard the environmentalists and naturalists have fought to get a stay of execution. For how long, we don’t know because, like Bukit Brown, it can come very suddenly. Similarly let us wait and see what happens to the green corridor that was once the old Malayan Railway track when we have a population of 6.9 million. The whole of Singapore used to be considered over-crowded when we had 2 million people and married couples had to stop at 2. Even with the best of planning can we really say we would not feel over-crowding with another 4.9 million?
A bedroom with an attached bathroom is sufficient for two persons. There is no problem accommodating six persons by using three bunk-beds. The problem comes only when the people start to use the facilities at one go. There will be queues to use the bathroom and enough critical mass of people to dirty the toilet. There will be high maintenance costs for the facilities and there will be poor quality of air in the room. Finally when someone gets the flu, everyone gets it. This is the microcosm of an over-crowded city.
The senior citizens will remember the times when they had many choices of secluded places to camp over night. What space would our children have with 7 to 10 million people on the island?
Open spaces can be used for active recreation like sports or it could just a quiet place where a person just wants to get away from the urban environment. Ideally there should be a park space of 16 square miles for 1 million people. With 6.9 million people, we need half of Singapore to provide that. With the money to be made from building residential and commercial properties and the need to acquire land for more roads, schools, hospitals and other infrastructure, it is not possible to keep half of the island for this. Every little green corner will be greedily swallowed to build a small residential unit or converted into a carpark. In doing so we are also destroying the pockets of nature that can promote biodiversity and provide a home for natural life.
Dr Howard Rusk, an authority on Human Rehabilitation, said, “Recreation is more than just having fun. It is fundamental to physical and mental well-being.” It is not just good for the development of children. It is also found to keep old people from visiting their doctors often. More importantly, the memory of places where a person used to enjoy will attach the person to the country he grew up in.
Dr Wong Wee Nam
Dr Wong Wee Nam (MBBS 1972, Singapore) is a general practitioner. He has contributed numerous articles on social and political issues for various publications and has given numerous talks on politics. In 1997, he contested the general election on a National Solidarity Party ticket in the Hong Kah GRC
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...ia-lim-2013020
Straits Times
Published on Feb 04, 2013 6:50 PM
WP opposes Population White Paper, says its chairman Sylvia Lim
By Rachel Chang
THE Workers' Party opposes the Government's Population White Paper , said party chairman Sylvia Lim in Parliament today.
It believes that the Government, in expanding the population to reach its economic growth targets, has gotten its priorities the wrong way around, she said.
Ms Lim laid out the WP's stance on the first day of the parliamentary debate, setting the agenda for her party's nine MPs.
It proposes an alternative population projection of about 5.9 million by 2030, and a greater tradeoff between economic growth and population expansion.
Singapore should work towards a more modest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate of 2.5 to 3 per cent to 2020, and 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent from 2020 to 2030.
This is about half a percentage point lower than the White Paper's projections.
Ms Lim also said that senior citizens "are not as much of a burden" as the Government is making them out to be.
A key plank of the White Paper's argument is that by 2030, there will only be 2.1 working citizens to support every person 65 years old and above, down from 5.9 now.
This assumes that senior citizens do not have economic resources of their own and will not be able to contribute to the economy, said Ms Lim. The WP believes they should be seen as resources, not burdens, she added.
Ms Lim also took aim at the Government's "half-hearted" attempts to boost the total fertility rate (TFR), which stems from the fact that immigration remains its key approach to augment the population. The Government seems "resigned" that the TFR will not improve greatly, and has not invested as much resources or tackled the issue as thoroughly as other counties like South Korea have done, she said.
In a parting shot, Ms Lim charged that the Population White Paper's title - "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore" - illustrated the Government's muddled priorities. Rather, it should be titled "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore," she said.
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/04...se-the-motion/
Workers’ Party does not endorse Population White Paper
February 4th, 2013
In the Parliamentary debate today, MP Sylvia Lim of Workers’ Party (WP) said that the party does not endorse the Population White Paper proposed by the People’s Action Party (PAP) Government and will oppose the Motion.
She said that WP believes the well-being of Singaporeans, quality of life and Singaporeans’ very identity will be put at peril under the Govt’s proposal. She said that the Govt is aiming for its GDP targets and the White Paper essentially proposes to grow the population to achieve it.
She asked, “Is it worth it?”
The government’s White Paper is entitled: “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”.
Ms Lim believes the govt has gotten its priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, it should be “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.
She said, “It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore.”
Ms Lim noted that since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, Singapore grew to 4 million in 2000 and then 5 million in 2010. The share of Singapore citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly 4 are foreigners.
She said, “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.”
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.
She pointed out, “55% is too close to the all important threshold of 50% majority. Furthermore, a closer reading will also show that this 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 % of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Wouldn’t 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.”
She told the House, “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 grow up in and with Singapore.”
“Therefore, the policy of ‘topping up’ shortfalls in our total fertility rate (TFR) with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean “core” is flawed.”
Ms Lim also pointed out that Singaporeans are already facing integration issues with the new citizens and a govt department is needed to look into the matter.
Addressing Mdm Halimah, the new speaker of Parliament, Ms Lim said, “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.”
In other words, even the long term commitments of some of Ms Lim’s new citizen friends are in question.
She added, “Accordingly, we do not agree with the govt’s definition of what constitutes a Singaporean ‘core’. Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.”
How then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population?
In WP’s view, the best way is to improve Singaporean total fertility rate (TFR).
She said, “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.”
She also said that certain structural problems 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 5 years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010.”
She explained that the Korean government recognized 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 family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents’ share of childrearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework.
She said, “The commitment and approach of the Korean government is worth study.”
However, Ms Lim also took pains to explain that WP is not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans. She said that one way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. Already, 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.
She said that currently, many Singaporeans have tried to apply for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status with great difficulty. Many are here on a Long Term Visit Pass which makes finding employment difficult. She asked if the Govt has considered this pool of foreign spouses a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour?
WP proposes a 5.9 million target
The PAP govt has justified the population growth projection largely based on its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3-4% from now to 2020, and 2-3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The govt also justifies these targets by citing the aging population and the declining old-age support ratio.
Ms Lim said, “The Workers’ Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the government’s suggested path.”
She said that the economy is but one aspect of the nation’s quality of life. She quoted population expert, Frederick Meyerson, that 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”.
Another point is that immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. She asked, “Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants.”
With regard to PAP’s plan to increase land resources in Singapore, she said, “If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority 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.”
Ms Lim then proposed a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the government is proposing. In WP’s view, this approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy.
Hence, WP proposed that Singapore should instead 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. It is believed that 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 the existing population can be utlised more.
Ms Lim explained, “We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, 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, 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, under WP’s plan. WP has done some estimates and believes that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less.
Under WP’s plan, Ms Lim said that it will require 1 million less people, in exchange for a reduction of GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%.
Ms Lim concluded, “This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singapore 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.”
Other WP MPs will be speaking more about the TFR and WP’s plan later in the debate this week.
(Read the full text of Sylvia Lim’s speech here: http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-population-for-a-sustainable-singapore-reclaiming-back-singapore-mp-sylvia-lim/)
Junior
http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-popul...mp-sylvia-lim/
Posted on Monday, February 4, 2013 at 9:54 pm
A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore: Reclaiming Back Singapore – MP Sylvia Lim
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 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 4 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.
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. 55% is too close to the all important threshold of 50% majority. Furthermore, a closer reading will also show that this 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 % of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Wouldn’t 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.” Madam 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 grow up in and with Singapore.
Therefore, the policy of “topping up” shortfalls in our total fertility rate (TFR) with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean “core” is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with the 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 constitutes a Singaporean “core”. Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.
Focus instead on TFR recovery
How then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean total fertility rate (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 5 years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just “hoping”, the Korean government recognized 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 family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents’ share of childrearing 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 is worth study.
My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate.
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?
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 3-4% from now to 2020, and 2-3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The government also justifies these targets by citing the aging population and the declining old-age support ratio.
The Workers’ Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the government’s suggested path.
Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation’s quality of life. To quote 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” (Meyerson, F. (2001). Replacement Migration: A Questionable Tactic for Delaying the Inevitable Effects of Fertility Transition. Population and Environment, 22:4. 401-409.). 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 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 is instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority 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 instead 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 1% per year, 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, 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.
Our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the government’s projections, in exchange for a reduction of GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singapore 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.
Conclusion
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 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.
Junior
http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/02/04...ld-to-live-in/
EIU Survey: S’pore 3rd most expensive city in Asia, 6th in the world to live in
February 4th, 2013
According to the Worldwide Cost of Living 2013 survey conducted by The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Singapore is now ranked 3rd most expensive city to live in Asia and the 6th in the world [Link].
The survey compares the cost of living among 131 cities worldwide using New York as a base city.
The top 10 most expensive cities in the world to live in:
http://www.tremeritus.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/10mostexpensive.jpg?9d7bd4
In Asia, Singapore is ranked 3rd after Japan’s Tokyo and Osaka. Currently, Singapore is even more expensive to live in than Hong Kong which is ranked 14th in the world.
In the recent Punggol East by-election, unhappy with the escalating cost of living caused by flawed policies of the PAP Govt, voters duly voted out the incumbent PAP in the by-election.
EIU conducts the survey twice a year, comparing more than 400 individual prices across 160 products and services. These include food, drinks, clothing, household supplies and personal care items, home rents, transport, utility bills, private schools, domestic help and recreational costs.
The strong Aussie dollar has also helped push up the rankings of Australian’s cities Sydney and Melbourne to the 3rd and 5th place in the top ten most expensive cities
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...nment-20130205
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 05, 2013
POPULATION WHITE PAPER
What exactly is a 'good quality living environment'?
DEBATES over the consequences of population growth have been vigorous, contentious and emotional ("Projected population rise raises concerns"; last Thursday).
My response is emotional and I make no excuses for it. I am concerned about the quality of life and the cost of living for ordinary citizens like myself.
Back in 1991, when the population was 3.1 million, the planning parameter was four million and this figure was projected to be reached by 2010.
In 2000, when the population was four million, the figure of 5.5 million was used in the Concept Plan review as an estimate for the total population over the next 40 to 50 years.
Then National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said worries that foreigners would swamp Singapore were baseless because the 5.5 million figure was not a target but an estimate for long-term planning purposes.
It will take a much shorter time than 40 years to reach the projected 5.5 million figure - the population last year stood at 5.3 million.
The latest White Paper projects a population of 6.9 million by 2030.
National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan has stressed that the projection is not a forecast or a target, but a "worst-case scenario".
Being part of the ageing population, I worry if I will still be able to live in my small HDB flat that I bought as a retirement home some 15 years ago.
A few years ago, my friend, who is my age and suffering from Alzheimer's, was relocated from the HDB flat she had been living in for almost 20 years.
The older flat was taken over by the HDB for redevelopment. She is not the only one to suffer the consequences of dislocation at her age.
I understand that 90 per cent of our population has been relocated and displaced since independence. I am grateful that my estate has not suffered the same fate as my friend's.
But Singaporeans have lived in a permanent state of upheaval, both physical and emotional, since independence.
So I am not comforted by the Prime Minister's assurance that he is "confident that Singapore will continue to offer a good quality living environment, and be one of the most liveable cities in the world" ("Plan to grow space for rising population"; last Friday).
What exactly does he mean by a "good quality living environment"?
Constance Singam (Ms)
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...ssues-20130205
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 05, 2013
Population debate: Address three fundamental issues
I WISH to make two points in response to the Government's Population White Paper ("Population could hit 6.9m by 2030"; last Wednesday).
First, it is unfair to compare the population density of Singapore and Hong Kong.
Quality of living is not about how densely you can pack people into land that can be developed. Factors such as land for recreational activities should also be taken into account.
Moreover, what land to exclude in the calculation of population density is subjective. If we can build housing on land reclaimed from the sea, surely it would be easier for the Hong Kong government to develop grassland and wetlands into living space ("Why population density is lower than HK's"; last Saturday).
Second, economic growth based on an increase in labour force is not a long-term solution. For example, a new citizen brought in at the age of 40 will become a "non-productive asset" 20 years later. Imagine if we are already in 2030 with a population of 6.9 million that is ageing rapidly. What policy options do we have then?
A better solution is to come up with a plan to address three fundamental issues - how to "produce more with less", how to increase our productive labour force without increasing our population, and how to raise our low birth rate.
The Government has been tackling the first issue by pushing the private sector to increase productivity. Perhaps the civil service should also set targets to improve productivity.
As for the second issue, some suggestions on how to increase our productive labour force without increasing our population include downsizing the civil service to release more people into the private sector, encouraging more women to rejoin the workforce after childbirth, and promoting flexible working hours and work-at-home schemes.
Finally, to tackle our low birth rate, we could perhaps make it easier for couples to adopt babies from overseas. These babies will grow up as Singaporeans as they will have their roots here.
Yeo Chee Kean
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...reans-20130205
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 05, 2013
Ensure S'pore in 2030 is a draw to overseas S'poreans
UNDERSTANDABLY, many Singaporeans have reacted with concern and anxiety over the Government's Population White Paper and its Land Use Plan.
While most residents feel a sense of disquiet at the prospect of living here with a 6.9 million population by 2030, there are others among the thousands of Singaporeans working and studying abroad who may have second thoughts about returning home.
Like the Government, it is our fervent wish as parents that our children come back to strengthen family ties as well as to contribute to the well-being of our country.
Alas, such a desire can be dashed if the environment is not conducive in terms of breathing space, living cost and employment opportunities.
Under such unfavourable circumstances, those currently living overseas for various reasons may put their plans to return on hold.
There are others like me, whose grandchildren will be in their 30s by 2030, who also treat the 6.9 million population as a worst-case scenario.
Likewise, we need to plan consciously and responsibly for our grandchildren's future to ensure that they have a good quality of life.
In other words, should we encourage them to go overseas for studies and employment, and let them decide if they should continue living there?
Unless the Government can ensure that Singapore is liveable in 2030, more Singaporeans will emigrate, while others abroad will stay away.
Hence, it is imperative that the population issue be studied and debated in depth, so that our children and grandchildren will not be subjected to hardship and unhappiness in future.
Jeffrey Law Lee Beng
Junior
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/...d-out-20130205
Straits Times Forum
Published on Feb 05, 2013
Share how 6.9m figure was worked out
IF THE 6.9 million population figure is a projection and not a target, then the Government should share with us the parameters on which the projection is based ("Paper on population is 'to spur debate'"; yesterday).
As it appears that many Singaporeans feel it is not tenable for our country to sustain a population of 6.9 million, it is imperative that all premises and assumptions of the projection be made known, and a referendum held to see if Singaporeans are comfortable with this projection.
If Singaporeans feel that the projection is reasonable and accept that this is needed for the country's survival, then we should move on to achieve the common goal.
If the referendum shows that most Singaporeans are not comfortable with a population of 6.9 million, then the Government should work towards policies to sustain a lower rate of population growth.
It is futile to put up a White Paper but not make the details known, and expect Singaporeans to debate the issue.
This is not an issue of "target" versus "projection", but a detailed and informed debate on an issue that outstrips any other in terms of serious repercussions since our country's independence.
Colin Loh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
