1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development if there are plans to set up more services, such as respite services, residential homes and day activity centres for the moderately to severely disabled adults in Singapore.
\tThe Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, many parents and families who have adult members with moderate to severe disabilities are concerned about the availability of care services. This is especially so when many of them are living longer and may outlive their care-givers. We also share and empathise with these concerns. Under the Enabling Masterplan 2012-2016, my Ministry will invest more resources and work with Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to enhance such services.
We will develop more community-based facilities. Today, we have 19 Day Activity Centres (DACs) which provide 950 places for the adult disabled who need full-day care. We will increase this to 29 centres offering about 1,450 places by 2020. The first five new centres will be up within the next five years. We will also enhance the skills set of the Day Activity Centre staff so that they are better able to care for adults with moderate to severe disabilities.
This year, we also intend to pilot a new drop-in disability programme at existing community facilities. This will cater to those who do not require full-day care but social interaction and recreational activities for a few hours a day, a few times a week. We aim to start four pilots at different locations this year.
We will continue to support families who care for adult members with disability at home. We have introduced home care services which cover areas, such as personal hygiene and meals. About 600 families with disabled members have also benefited from the monthly $95 Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Levy Concession, while another 320 families with disabled members received the monthly $120 Foreign Domestic Worker Grant introduced last October. Family members or FDWs may also tap on the Caregiver Training Grant to pick up skills
\tPage: 8
in care for the disabled.
Despite our effort to support home and community-based care, there will be some adults with disabilities who need residential care. The demand will rise given the longer lifespan of persons with disabilities. Today, we have eight Adult Disability Homes which provide 830 places. We plan to provide an additional 2,400 residential places by the year 2020. To complement the Adult Disability Homes, we also intend to work with VWOs to pilot group homes for persons with disabilities who are relatively independent. If successful, this will widen the residential options available.
Some of our efforts are in its nascent phase, while others are more established services being expanded. We will invest the necessary resources but we will need time to implement the plans. More importantly, we will need the support of the families and the community so that all the efforts put together will give parents and care-givers the peace of mind and enable our disabled to be well cared for.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for the comprehensive reply. I wanted to ask if the Acting Minister would be able to, either now or later, provide a forecast of the requirements of this particular target group, which comprises mainly people who have more severe disabilities and who need special handling. There are three main needs in terms of setting up facilities: one is physical facilities; the second is funding, especially for the more severe cases; and the third – which is the largest bottleneck – is the manpower. Many local people do not want this kind of jobs because it is difficult and they have other choices, in terms of careers. I would like to ask the Acting Minister to provide, firstly, the forecast. Secondly, some segmented needs profile so that those who really need help but help is not easily gotten – like for this group with very severe disabilities – that we can use together to formulate some solutions. The VWOs are willing to work on them. We just need to be able to work with the Ministry on this.
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, I thank Ms Denise Phua for her supplementary questions and suggestions. Yes, certainly, we will provide the forecast and we are working closely with the VWOs to meet some of these needs. The Member is right. The physical infrastructure is probably the easier part to meet. But more importantly is the funding of the programmes; and, most importantly, is the manpower requirement.
Page: 9
For the funding of the programmes, we are open to working with more VWOs to pilot different sorts of programmes for different tiers of needs. As for manpower, as what we have described in other sectors, we are also looking at new sources of manpower to see whether we can open up more opportunities for people to contribute part-time services to this community. At the same time, in order to ensure that our manpower supply is robust, we would also need to explore alternative sources of manpower beyond the traditional countries that we have been working with.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Revising Limits for Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) Scheme","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the age and income limit under the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) Scheme to help divorced women who have custody of their children; (b) whether the support for divorcees in the areas of housing costs and childcare will be improved; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that divorcees receive maintenance fees in a timely manner.
The Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (Mr Chan Chun Sing): Mdm Speaker, the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) scheme helps young, less-educated and lower-income couples who choose to keep their families small. The scheme does not specifically focus on divorced mothers. But following a review in 2009, divorced mothers can apply to join the scheme. As at September 2012, 301 divorced mothers were on the scheme, including some who had marginally missed the eligibility criteria but were admitted on a case-by-case basis. MSF is reviewing the HOPE scheme now and we note Dr Lee's various suggestions.
Divorcees with young children may sometimes find it difficult to afford alternative housing after they have sold their matrimonial flat. For those in financial hardship, HDB will look into ways to help them. For example, HDB can help them source for a flat that they can afford, and consider incorporating the resale levy into the price of the flat or provide loans to reduce the upfront cost. For those who need temporary accommodation, HDB can offer them interim housing under the Interim Rental Housing Scheme, while they rebuild their savings or work out more permanent housing arrangements. For those who cannot afford home ownership, HDB can consider offering them a public rental
\tPage: 10
flat.
In the area of childcare, single parents are eligible for infant and childcare subsidies. In addition, ComCare childcare subsidies provide further financial assistance to families earning a household income of $3,500 or below, or a per capita income of up to $875. MSF regularly reviews the support provided for childcare and infant care, especially for lower and middle income families.
Receiving timely payment of maintenance is an issue some divorcees face. Under the Women's Charter, the Court can make an attachment of earnings order when it makes an order for maintenance. An attachment of earnings order will deduct the maintenance amount directly from the payer's salary and transfer it to the maintenance recipient. This will help to secure payment of the maintenance.
In 2011, MSF amended the Women's Charter to increase the range of sanctions against maintenance defaulters. With the amendments, the Court can order a defaulter to post a bank guarantee against future defaults, perform community service or attend financial counselling. This is in addition to the Court being able to make a garnishee order, levy a fine or sentencing the defaulter to imprisonment. Complainants are also empowered to report the maintenance debt to a designated credit bureau.
\tEr Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, I have one supplementary question. I have a resident who is a divorcee with three children, and she has joint custody of the children with her ex-husband. She confided in me that her ex-husband always defaults on the maintenance payment. Worse still, he always makes applications to the Family Court, and brings along his lawyer. My resident is working, and so she has to apply for leave to attend the hearings. It is very stressful to deal with three children, no maintenance payment, and still face the need to apply for leave to attend the court hearings. Otherwise, she said she would be issued with warrants of arrest. In a situation like this, how else can the Ministry help a divorcee in such a dire situation?
\tMr Chan Chun Sing: Mdm Speaker, I do not have all the details of this particular case, but MSF will be most happy to extend help to this resident of Dr Lee's. If the Member can provide details, I will ask my staff to follow up to see how best we can provide the legal and financial help to the family.
Page: 11
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Initiatives and Resources for Community Engagement Masterplan","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"The following question stood in the name of Ms Janice Koh –
3 To ask\tthe Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) if he will give an update on the implementation of the Community Engagement Masterplan; and (b) what is the breakdown of expenditure on the Masterplan's initiatives, including how much has been spent on (i) additional manpower given to agencies and the hire of community engagement officers (ii) direct grants awarded to professional artists, arts groups and intermediaries (iii) direct grants awarded to community arts groups (iv) programmes to raise arts appreciation and cultural literacy and (v) upgrading and building of facilities.
4 To ask the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how it intends to measure the success of the Community Engagement Masterplan at the end of FY16; (b) whether there is a comprehensive basket of qualitative and quantitative indicators being used to chart the progress and effectiveness of the outreach initiatives under the Masterplan; and (c) whether there is a lead agency to be held accountable for all the deliverables.
\tMr David Ong (Jurong): Question No 3.
\tThe Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 3 and 4 together.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: Launched in April 2012, the Community Engagement Masterplan aims to bring the arts and culture closer to many more Singaporeans. We want to encourage Singaporeans to pursue their interests in the arts and culture, enrich their quality of life and strengthen their sense of heritage, and also their connection with the community. This is a long-term programme that requires strong support and participation from the community.
As at 31 December 2012, an estimated $19 million has been expended under the Masterplan. Around 50% of these funds have gone towards establishing networks of staff and volunteers to engage residents and to work with them to tailor programmes of interest to the local community. These networks also disseminate information on activities, resources and facilities
\tPage: 12
that are available, thereby enhancing interest in arts and culture in the community.
Another 40% of the Community Engagement Masterplan funding has been used to support new programmes. The programmes funded under the Masterplan include the creation of 84 community arts and culture clubs, and various community interest groups in art forms, such as pottery, theatre, singing and even the ukulele.
Other programmes supported under the Masterplan include the over 450 Arts and Culture 101 programmes held at NLB's public libraries, and other targeted programmes for youths, seniors and working adults, which aim to increase appreciation for arts and culture.
Many of these programmes have involved professional arts practitioners, creating new platforms for professional artists to engage the community. To date, more than 140 artists and arts groups have participated in various platforms as performers, instructors and mentors.
For example, NAC had a Silver Arts Platform which supported the literary publication Ceriph in their first community project \"10 X 10\". Basically, they paired 10 young writers with 10 senior citizens to collaborate on creative writing projects. NAC's \"Let's Connect\" networking sessions are another example, providing opportunities for community organisations and arts practitioners to collaborate.
The remaining 10% of funding has gone towards the development and upgrading of facilities under the Community Engagement Masterplan. These include a number of new and enhanced heritage trails and the recently opened community museum at Taman Jurong. These developments have served as touchpoints to engage volunteers and other enthusiasts. Our Museum @ Taman Jurong alone involved the participation of more than 200 residents in the lead-up to its launch in January this year.
Besides the more broad-based programmes rolled out in this initial phase, funding under the Community Engagement Masterplan will also support programmes to deepen engagement among new audiences. Through the various initiatives under the Community Engagement Masterplan, MCCY's agencies and partners will also encourage community enthusiasts to work with professional arts practitioners so as to help raise the quality of arts and culture
\tPage: 13
programming at the community level.
To gauge the Masterplan's success, we monitor a range of indicators that are both quantitative and qualitative in nature. The quantitative measures include the number of programmes that are supported and the number of Singaporeans the programmes have reached out to. Some of the qualitative indicators include Singaporeans' perception of arts and culture, which are captured in NAC's biennial National Population Survey on the Arts. We also monitor the percentages of Singaporeans who agree that arts and culture have contributed towards a better quality of life, a greater sense of belonging, and a better understanding of people of different backgrounds and cultures.
In addition to these indicators, our implementation agencies, such as NAC, NHB, PA and NLB, also have separate quantitative and qualitative indicators for their respective initiatives under the Masterplan. For example, NLB tracks whether there is a change in a person's interest in arts and culture after he has attended the NLB's Arts and Culture 101 programme; NAC tracks the impact of arts and culture on the well-being of beneficiaries for its programmes in the social sector.
Collectively, all of these efforts contribute towards the long-term outcomes set out in our Arts and Culture Strategic Review (ACSR). One of the outcomes that is envisaged in the Arts and Culture Strategic Review is that by 2025, we hope that at least four out of every five Singaporeans will attend at least one arts and culture event, and at least half of all Singaporeans will participate actively in the arts.
As the lead agency for the Community Engagement Masterplan, MCCY will monitor and account for our overall progress to ensure that the investment in the Community Engagement Masterplan translates to real benefits for Singaporeans. This includes the continual review and refinement of all programmes and initiatives to ensure that the efforts of the agencies that are part of the Masterplan collectively contribute to our desired outcomes.
\tMs Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. I am really glad to hear that the agencies implementing the Masterplan initiatives are developing their own basket of quantitative and qualitative success indicators. I think a biennial survey might be a little too general and does not necessarily just capture the impact of the community initiatives. I am wondering if those outcomes will be made public. My second question is related to manpower, and
\tPage: 14
whether or not the cultural officers that have been deployed or are hired to work at the CC level have been given the requisite training, as well as the exposure to the arts.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. The first question, on whether the indicators at the agency-level can be published, we would do so to the extent possible. We do want to make sure that each agency tracks the programmes that it is initiating and it is implementing, and be accountable for these programmes. When we do a review of the overall effort, then we will see whether there is scope to fine-tune our programmes at that stage. So, the indicators are, indeed, helpful for that purpose and, to the extent possible, we would encourage the agencies to put out these indicators.
The second question, on manpower and training, it is something that we would like to do. We are doing this, and I think we can do better. We have had a group of staff and volunteers, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, who are deployed within the community. That is manpower that is needed in order to help link up the community with arts groups, arts professionals, to help understand better what the community needs are. I appreciate the point that these officers also need to be trained in arts at some level, so that they understand not only the needs of the community, but also have a good understanding of what is happening in the arts space, who are the professionals in the arts, sectors that they can link up with. We have done some of that kind of exposure and training, but I think we can do more. And we will continue to do so.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"MediShield Coverage for Congenital Illness for Persons Diagnosed before March 2013","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"5 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health if he will implement measures to provide MediShield coverage for persons born with congenital illnesses and diagnosed before 1 March 2013 who are excluded from the recently announced Marriage and Parenthood Package.
\t
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Health): Mdm Speaker, MediShield is a health insurance scheme which focuses on inpatient hospitalisation and selected outpatient treatment like chemotherapy and dialysis. My Ministry recently announced the extension of MediShield coverage to congenital conditions for Singaporeans born on or after 1 March 2013. Existing policyholders will also receive coverage for congenital conditions diagnosed on or after 1 March 2013.
\tPage: 15
Conditions diagnosed prior to the extension in cover are considered pre-existing and, hence, will not be covered under MediShield. Covering pre-existing conditions will lead to higher premiums for all.
My Ministry understands the concerns of Singaporeans whose children were diagnosed with congenital conditions before 1 March 2013, and has put in place further measures to address these concerns. We have set up a new scheme, Medifund Junior, from 1 March 2013 to provide additional financial assistance for healthcare bills incurred by children. Children with congenital conditions diagnosed before 1 March 2013 will benefit from this additional assistance under Medifund Junior, if their families face difficulties with their healthcare bills. Medifund Junior will help us to more effectively target families with higher needs and provide added assurance to Singaporeans.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Basic healthcare insurance for every person, not just for children, regardless of ability or health condition, is an essential good that is needed, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said, in times of hospitalisation, or even for treatment such as chemotherapy, and so forth. I am really grateful to MOH and the Government for responding to the public's cry for – especially in the special needs community – covering children who are born on or after 1 March 2013 with congenital or pre-existing conditions. So, thank you for that, I want to register that.
However, there is still this group who are in the transition who happened to be missed out and excluded from this wonderful package. Say what we want, they are still excluded, and they are not provided with what is basic healthcare insurance. We have always heard that if we include them, then a higher premium will be incurred. But I think this is something that is more than economics. It is a basic good or essential good that should be provided to every citizen, I ask the Ministry to look at this again. It is not an easy topic. I feel that the Medifund Junior that is set up will help some but not cover every child, and does not include every Singaporean that needs to be covered. This is only a transitional period. I ask for a special look into this.
I also ask the Ministry to make public what is Medifund Junior. What is the definition of \"children\"? Does it mean that if they are older than 12, they are not covered? What is really covered? What kind of criteria are we looking at? And what happens to the rest of the Singaporean children, youths and adults who are not covered currently? And also, to look urgently into situations under which
\tPage: 16
they need to go beyond the usual MediShield coverage ceiling; to see if there are best practices in other countries and other societies that we can look into so that they can be safe from that kind of hardship that they will experience if they do not have money to treat their congenital or pre-existing illnesses. So, I look forward to MOH's help in this. It is not easy. I thank you very much for the M&P Package. I really think that we might as well complete it and include this group that is not included.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions, and also for her concerns for the children. That is the precise intention of what we are doing. In fact, we are going to roll out the Medifund Junior, which is for children aged below 18. Essentially, with Medifund Junior, we would cover our children. No Singaporean children will be deprived of medical attention and treatment, even if they do not have the financial resources. But we will look into the Member's views. To me, it is an on-going journey that we are looking at to see how we can further enhance our healthcare system.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his openness. I would like to know how long that on-going journey will be, because I am advocating not just for those below 18, but there are many, for example, adults with Down Syndrome where it is not transparent if they are covered or not under the current scheme. I understand they are not covered in many instances. Many insurers are not interested in covering them, but I think the State should look into this and see how we can come up with some solutions on this. For some families, it may be co-sharing. For others who are from the lower income families, the State might want to take over the insurance. I would just like to ask for some timeline on this.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, I am also happy to share with the Member that we have increased the portion for Medifund for those who are above 18. We have increased it from $80 million to $100 million. Like I said earlier, essentially, we will look into the needs of Singaporeans, regardless of their conditions. We want to ensure that no Singaporeans are deprived of medical services. Again, I thank the Member for her views. We will certainly look at all the views and further improve our healthcare system.
Page: 17
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Elderly-friendly Road Safety Features","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Transport if the Ministry will develop and implement elderly-proof road safety master plans for estates with a higher number of elderly residents, for example, in the North Bridge Road, Crawford, Waterloo and Rochor areas.
\tThe Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Transport): Mdm Speaker, road and pedestrian safety for everyone, and not just the elderly, has always been one of our topmost concerns.
Where site situations permit, for example in housing estates, LTA will install traffic-calming measures, such as humps and speed-regulating strips, to ensure that motorists reduce their speeds. To facilitate safer crossings along certain roads, LTA constructs centre dividers to provide a central refuge for pedestrians.
Specifically for the elderly, we recently announced new plans to retrofit more pedestrian overhead bridges with lifts. For traffic light crossings, the Green Man Plus scheme has been expanded to allow the elderly to activate longer crossing times. LTA also collaborates with other agencies like the Singapore Road Safety Council to educate the elderly on crossing roads safely.
Notwithstanding these measures, we would be happy to consider the idea of estate-specific elderly-proof road safety master plans, and I welcome the Member to work with the Ministry and LTA to take this idea further.
\tMs Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang): Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I am heartened to hear that LTA is open to this. I just want to register that LTA has been very responsive in my area whenever we make requests. As you know, there are some areas in Singapore which have predominantly elderly people, such as where I serve, Kampong Glam; or where Dr Lily Neo serves, Kreta Ayer; and even Mr Sam Tan's Redhill area. I hope that some priority will be given to these areas so that the old people would not have to wait until it is too late to enjoy some of these elderly-proof facilities.
\tAssoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim: Madam, again, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. We share her concerns. That is the reason why I mentioned that we give road safety our top priority, not only for the elderly but also for all road users. We will be very happy to work
\tPage: 18
with the Member, looking at specific locations in her area, as well as in other areas, to see how we can enhance the road safety aspect. After all, these are our fellow human beings. We want to ensure they are always safe on the road.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Visitorship at Museums","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OA","content":"7 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) why there has been a drop in visitorship to the Singapore Art Museum since 2009; (b) why there has been a drop in the number of changing exhibitions at the Singapore Art Museum and other national museums since 2009; and (c) whether there should be an increase in the FY13 and future budgetary allocations to our museums, in particular, the Singapore Art Museum.
The Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (Mr Lawrence Wong): Mdm Speaker, since 2009, the Singapore Art Museum (SAM) has shifted its focus to Singapore, Southeast Asian and Asian contemporary art, moving away from international \"blockbusters\", to promote and project content that is relevant to Singapore.
As part of the shift, SAM has also positioned itself as a platform to develop, nurture and champion local artists, working with both established and emerging artists to create new artworks or explore new forms of art practice.
We think this stronger focus on local development and content may have contributed to the decline in visitorship numbers. Nevertheless, I believe it is the right focus for SAM. The museum is working hard to promote greater awareness and interest in regional and local art. Over time, this will help draw more people to the museum, and also ensure that it remains accessible and attractive to Singaporeans.
At the same time, in line with public expectations of quality, the national museums have also been refocusing resources on more significant exhibitions, to enhance visitor experience. Exhibitions at our museums are now presented with stronger curatorial focus, a broader scope, running for a longer duration and accompanied by a broader array of accompanying programmes, such as performances, public lectures, curator tours, artist-led workshops and activities for children. For example, the exhibition \"A Life of Practice – Kuo Pao Kun\", which is currently running at the National Museum of Singapore, presents Kuo Pao Kun's life through a wide selection of media, and involves concurrently
\tPage: 19
running plays and a film screening.
The focus of our national museums on higher quality, broader engagement and more original content will require strong support from the Government. My Ministry will work closely with NHB to ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to our national museums. Through this, we hope to further our museums' role in promoting Singapore's artistic and cultural heritage, and to develop them as national symbols that our people can be proud of, with rich offerings that all can enjoy.
\tMs Janice Koh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. It is great that SAM is trying to be a little more focused in terms of its theme on Southeast Asian and Asian art. However, I still feel that the broader Singaporean public that does not have easy access to high quality international artworks should still continue to have some kind of access, and that helps raise our cultural literacy and appreciation for the arts in general. I know it is a lot more expensive to bring in the \"blockbusters\", but I hope that the Ministry will consider other museums who can take over this role. These \"blockbusters\" bring a large number of Singaporeans who may not ordinarily go into the museum to see world-quality art.
My second question is regarding marketing and publicity. We can see from the numbers that both SAM and the National Museum had a drop in changing exhibits in the last two years. However, the National Museum had an increase of about 10% visitorship whereas SAM had a decrease of about 15%. It could have been that a few \"blockbuster\" exhibitions at the National Museum still managed to attract a high number of visitors despite the fact that they had fewer exhibitions. It also has to do with the quality of exhibitions, as well as the outreach and marketing efforts. So, I would like to ask the Ministry to ensure that SAM, as well as the smaller museums, have enough of a budget to reach out to a wider number of Singaporeans.
Lastly, with regard to the Singapore Biennale, which will give us an opportunity to feature world-class art from Southeast Asia, the region and Singapore, to ensure that we put in enough thought into marketing and publicity so that we reach out to new audiences and people who do not normally go into a museum.
\tMr Lawrence Wong: I would like to thank the Member for all her very constructive and useful suggestions. I share all her points because, indeed, I think we need to do more to reach out to Singaporeans and to make quality art
\tPage: 20
accessible to them. It is not just through the museums. We had the Singapore Art Week recently, which was a very good show, and offerings of art exhibitions at the Art Stage, Gillman Barracks, SAM, amongst others. And we had a good turn-out. But we can still do more in terms of getting people to come to these exhibitions, reaching out to school kids, students, community groups to organise tours in these various platforms, in which people can enjoy and appreciate art. We hope to do more of that, not just for SAM but the broader platforms or other museums, as the Member has suggested, other art exhibitions that could be done at the Gillman Barracks, at the Art Stage, or at the other Art Fests in Singapore.
The overall scene, I think, is becoming more vibrant, and so there will, indeed, be more opportunities for Singaporeans to enjoy and appreciate art in Singapore. So, the point is well taken that we need to do a lot more outreach, not just about marketing and publicity, but outreach to Singaporeans to make art accessible to them. That is something we hope to do in the Ministry, and working with our partner agencies as well.
The same thing would go for the Biennale that the Member mentioned. It is something that we hope will not just be an event that people feel is far and away, aloof and distant, and that it is only for a particular group of people, but one which all Singaporeans can feel is something they can enjoy.
On the point about quality of exhibitions and making the balance between local/regional art and international \"blockbusters\", the museums are mindful of this. They do want to have more focused exhibitions, providing platforms for local and regional artists. I think it is commendable that they are doing that. We do need to promote that space a lot more but they cannot just do it exclusively. They will need to find a balance between the kinds of exhibitions that they have – some will be international \"blockbusters\", and there will still be a continuation of these exhibitions – whether at SAM or the National Museum. But, overall, we do also want to have a strong focus on developing local and regional artists, and also strengthening the cultural and heritage connections that the museums can provide for Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker: Order. End of Question Time.
Page: 21
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore","subTitle":"Motion","sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [4 February 2013], (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"That this House endorses Paper Cmd 1 of 2013 on 'A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore' as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and Paper Misc 1 of 2013 on 'A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans' as the land use plan to support Singapore's future population.\". – [Mr Teo Chee Hean]. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Amendments proposed [5 February 2013] – (proc text)]
[(proc text) \"(1) in line 3, to leave out 'population policy'; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (2) at the end, to add 'projections; and supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking; and recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to: (proc text)]
[(proc text) (a) place priority on resolving current strains on the infrastructure, particularly in transport; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (b) plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand; (proc text)]
[(proc text) (c) ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans; and (proc text)]
[(proc text) (d) carry out medium-term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.'.\" – (Mr Liang Eng Hwa). (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [5 February 2013], \"That the words proposed to be left out be left out.\". (proc text)]
[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]
Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, when this White Paper was released, like most Members of this House, I received a lot of feedback from Singaporeans from all walks of life. Many were concerned about the headline
Page: 22
population projections, wondering if it could be achieved and, more importantly, at what cost. Others opined that the exact figures were unimportant as long as Singaporeans could continue to enjoy a good standard of living. There were even a few bullish ones who remarked that perhaps the figures were even too conservative, and a larger population was needed.
I believe that everyone holds an opinion on this, and that is the first remarkable aspect of this White Paper that I would like to highlight, that it has encouraged all Singaporeans to really begin thinking about the directions that our country should take, and the preparations that are needed to achieve this. I hope that all Singaporeans will take the time to read through the White Paper in an open and considered manner, and realise that, far from being a means to an end, it actually represents a means to a beginning.
This White Paper presents a bold vision. But we are all heartened to note that, at its very foundation, if you read it closely, is its aim to, first and foremost, affirm the position of Singaporeans as the focus of this vision, no matter what future challenges await us. And I am sure that no one would disagree with this, so I am more than a little disturbed that Members from the other side of the House have not come to fully appreciate this point but have chosen instead to concentrate on numbers rather than truly providing constructive and realistic ideas about how we can improve the quality of our lives while moderating population expansion, because this is exactly what this White Paper is really about.
As it has already been established, and contrary to what some detractors had tried to portray, the Government is not trying to target any population target or any population composition. But we are trying to impress on Singaporeans the gravity of the challenges facing us, of which population expansion is just one key consideration. There has been no attempt, I am glad to note, to sugarcoat the stark realities that face us, although there are concrete proposals as to how to deal with them. In fact, it reflects a recalibration to acknowledge lower growth expectations and pushes for lower population growth rates and foreigner influx, rather than the other way around. If we are able to assure a good quality of life and the continued survival of our city state in 2030, 2040 and beyond with a population of – well, we can paint any figure, for example, 5.5 million, 5.7 million, 5.8 million, 6 million, 6.5 million, then so be it, because nowhere in the White Paper does it say that there is any pre-ordained economic growth or population figure to be pursued at all costs.
If you would allow me the indulgence to perhaps draw a parallel from my profession as a doctor, as a responsible doctor. What I see most days are
Page: 23
patients, for example, who come into my clinic with pain in the knee. This is typically an elderly patient, and the most common diagnosis is that of arthritis of the knee. Arthritis of the knee merely means that the cartilage or the tissues in the knee are wearing out. So, my duty as a doctor is to fully explain the diagnosis to the patient, tell him what the problem is and also what the problem may be like in the future. Sometimes, the patient does not want to know, but I may also have a duty of care to explain the facts to the caregivers, the children and so on. Once all this is done, then my next job is to explain all the choices that this patient can make to deal with his particular problem. In many cases, I may have to prescribe or recommend surgery. But, of course, there are trade-offs with this. Surgery is an uncomfortable process, at least in the beginning. The caregivers must give special attention to deal with this period of hospitalisation or aftercare. But the final expectation is that the patient would have a good quality of life once he or she is fully recovered. However, an equally valid proposition or choice for this patient is to say, \"Well, I would be prepared to accept that, as I grow older, I will be less mobile, I may have a little bit more pain and be less active in my life.\" This is an equally valid proposition and deals away with the pains of surgery. But, as a doctor, I would also have an opinion as to what I think would be the best treatment for this patient because if I have my patient's best interest at heart, then what I would want for this patient is to allow this \"Ah Mah\" or \"Ah Pek\" to go back to the way he or she was before he or she had this condition. And this is what a responsible doctor has to do.
Similarly, what a responsible government has to do is to make all the facts available to the population and not sugarcoat any of it and begin a debate as to the choices and the alternatives that are in front of us. This is not an end of any policy that has a defined end point. This is the start of the debate. There are alternatives, choices and trade-offs, and I think it is well and good that we begin to discuss this right now rather than trying to defer the issue or to \"kick the can down the road\", as has been mentioned previously.
We have to be realistic about the twin internal challenges that face us, which are a stubbornly low TFR and an ageing population and acknowledge that dealing with these problems is not easy and there are few success stories out there to this day. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We have to be realistic about the twin internal challenges that face us, which are a stubbornly low TFR and an ageing population.
As I see it, the Government has already given assurances that it will never give up on tackling these issues, but one has to be practical enough to
Page: 24
appreciate that we need time to resolve these issues, and also to be realistic enough to appreciate that despite our best efforts, we may not be able to address these problems adequately. Certainly, in the near to mid term, to achieve the growth in citizen workforce without relying on non-Citizens might very well mean that our children will need to enter the workforce at a younger age, and we may only be able to retire to enjoy our senior years at a much older age. Is this the sort of Singapore we desire for ourselves and our children?
I am a firm believer that our seniors can continue to contribute both socially and economically, but I also feel it is not sustainable for us, as a nation, to ask of our citizens to postpone their retirement and continue working well into their later years.
No disrespect to the hon Mr Yee, but I object to our Singaporean workforce being likened to a tap that can be turned on and off. He starts off stating that Singapore should not be looked upon as a company, which we all agree is well and good, but, later, reduces Singapore workers to so many drops of water from a faucet. Mr Yee, we are not a people that can be turned on or off like an ordinary tap.
Other documented examples of successes in promoting resident workforce participation seem even more draconian: for example, Poland has been credited with significant success in this area by cutting welfare and social safety nets.
The Government is listening to the aspirations of our younger generation by setting ambitious targets for moving a significant proportion of our citizen population to high-value high-paying jobs by 2030, aiming for two out of every three citizens to hold such jobs: this will be an incredible achievement, but who then will take up the lower-skilled, lower-paying but equally important jobs, such as care-giving, senior facilitators, therapy assistants and so on?
I represent the good people of Queenstown, where close to 20% of residents are above the age of 60, and, so, it already provides a snapshot of what Singapore will be like in 2030. The elderly in Queenstown are generally happy and healthy and lead good lives, but they still require more labour-intensive resources than the younger residents.
I would like to put up two requests here. My first specific request is that special consideration should always be made to ensure adequate manpower provisions for eldercare services. Second, I was very happy to see the development plans for the Dawson Estate in Queenstown mentioned in the
Page: 25
Land Use Plan, but just as Ms Faizah Jamal before me has called for greater attention to be paid to the environment, I would also like to call for continued attention to be paid to our urban heritage.
As our population grows and our towns develop, an appreciation of our heritage in its various forms could be an important part of connecting residents both new and old, and this would reinforce the third pillar of the White Paper, namely, keeping Singapore a good home.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, I feel that moving forward, the Government will have to do a lot more to assure Singaporeans that whatever development trajectory that we take, we will be adequately prepared to deal with these changes such that our quality of life is not only maintained but continues to improve, and that our citizens will continue to have the right to first refusal of all opportunities that arise.
Citizenship has its responsibilities, but it also has its privileges. During the early days of nation building, the nascent PAP Government entreated the people to work with them and endure sea changes so that their lives could improve. It was a big task, but Singaporeans believed in the call, and we grew to be a nation to be proud of and which other nations envied. In recent more challenging times, the Government has still managed to maintain us on an even keel, and we even prospered whilst many countries around us are in crisis, but relative deficiencies in keeping the infrastructure growth apace of population expansion has led to many expectations not being met.
My residents have expressed their concerns to me about overcrowding, the perception that Singaporean wage increases and opportunities are compromised by foreign labour, and a cost of living that appears to be climbing ever upwards. It is thus not surprising that many are less than enthusiastic about a new plan in which any degree of population expansion is considered. One resident remarked that notwithstanding everything else, \"the bread-and-butter issues of today must be resolved first\". This is a sentiment that I can sympathise with, and echoes many of the views expressed in this House over the past few days.
So, the Government has its work cut out to strengthen the public's trust that it can meet its citizens' high but reasonable expectations regarding their quality of life, otherwise many will remain unconvinced that we will be able to realise this vision.
Page: 26
As such, I would like to state my support for the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa's proposed amendment to this Motion, which explicitly states that:
(1) this is a Motion that calls for uplifting of all Singaporeans while being cognisant of the demographic challenges ahead;
(2) emphasises that there are, indeed, no pre-mediated population targets; and
(3) reinforces the primary duty of Government to solve the current bread-and-butter issues while ensuring that benefits continue to accrue to Singaporeans first.
Which brings me to my final point and what I think is the other remarkable aspect of this Paper, which is, why is this Government putting this paper out after all? I think this has already been answered over the past few days. It seems that after so many days of debate, and no matter which side of the House you sit on, we seem to be aligned on two points which are self-evident:
(1) that Singapore Citizens are the core of any development plans; and
(2) that the population and economy should grow, but with as little foreigner influx as possible.
As some pundits have remarked, \"This is a wise and just Government, it has done so many good things for the country, so why does it have to set out such a potentially divisive and unpopular Paper?\" After all, if you look through the literature in virtually every developed country that has tried to debate addressing demographic challenges through population modulation, the initial reaction has almost always been significantly guarded, if not negative.
But I believe that the answer lies in the fact that this is a just Government, a responsible Government, and a caring Government that it must do what has to be done. This, to a large extent, should be above politics. Now, more than ever, as an adolescent nation striving towards greater maturity, our people need to be kept informed of our internal as well as external changes, possible scenarios, roadmaps to the future, their views and concerns must be collated, they must be sought in order to refine this plan and all the alternative trade-offs and not just any single plan presented to the voting public. This Government will have to be fleet, astute and hardworking to encourage the needed trust and support from the people in order for us to move forward as a nation. And I have
Page: 27
the confidence that it will.
Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I would like to commend the Government for raising a topic that is important and, quite clearly, not winning them brownie points at the moment with the general public. But I would like to say that the White Paper has some missing and wrong ingredients, and I do not agree with the population projection numbers and, hence, I am unable to endorse the paper.
One key issue for me is that I am having a major disconnect. How did we go from fearing ageing and depopulation to having a potential population explosion? Where does this dependence on growing GDP through increased immigration end? If we continue the 1.4% total population growth projected for 2020-2030 in the White Paper beyond 2030, our population size will double every 50 years. This means it will hit 9.8 million in 2050 and 19.7 million by the end of the century. I hope the Government would reassure us that doubling our population every 50 years is a \"no-case scenario\".
If the Government says, alright, they agree that we need to stop this population growth at some point, and stop relying on workforce growth as one of the key means to boost our GDP, the question then is why can that point not be brought forward? Why can we not do the adjustments earlier?
On the economic front, are we really making the transition to a knowledge-based, innovation economy? Exactly 10 years ago, in February 2003, the Economic Review Committee (ERC) outlined key recommendations to remake Singapore into a creative and entrepreneurial nation. Have we failed? Seems like we might have, and we need to examine the reasons for the failure.
In the ERC report, it projected a sustainable growth rate of 3%-5% per annum, with productivity growth of 2%-3% and labour force growth of 1%-2%. Instead, we had labour force growth between 2000 and 2010 of 3.7%, almost double the upper bound target and with about two-thirds of this made up of immigration. The productivity growth of 1.8% was below the lower bound target.
This target has never changed. In February 2010, exactly three years ago, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), again reaffirmed the same targets – 2% to 3% productivity growth, GDP growth of 3%-5% and, by implication, a labour
Page: 28
force growth of 1% to 2%. Despite saying that we must \"moderate the future growth of the foreign workforce\" in the ESC report, we saw a growth of non-resident labour force of 6.3% from 2010 to 2011, and 7.4% the following year, and a total labour force growth of 3.2% and 3.9% respectively.
In the Population White Paper, there is déjà vu. Exactly the same targets or projections. Why is Government saying then that the White Paper is proposing a major shift to slow down our rate of workforce and population growth, as if it were a major policy shift, when the policy and targets have actually stayed exactly the same from 2003 to 2010 to today? If the policy did not change, then the infrastructure problems today seem less because of the lack of forward planning but because the original plan was not adhered to.
Is this Government now able to boost productivity and is it really able to moderate the growth of the foreign workforce, when it has failed to do so previously?
I am also not sure how the 6.9 million is a \"worst case scenario\", and that they hope that the actual figure would turn out to be a much lower number. The Government can at least indirectly control both the demand for foreign labour and supply of the foreign population. And with so many large infrastructure projects lined up and all the investment promotion activities going on with full force, would the large increases of foreign labour become a fait accompli?
And if infrastructure is built and not fully utilised, would they not be unnecessarily wasted? These would be monies that can be better spent to address social concerns. Building excessive infrastructure will also only put more pressure on the need to bring in yet more foreign workers into the construction industry. And to clear land required to cater to a 6.9 million population, heritage and great nature reserves would be taken away at great loss to the legacy that we provide to our children, and simply wasted away for economic immigrants that we would not have.
Let me suggest that the long-term policy should be to cap the total population by 2030 at six million. This will require only allowing roughly a 1% annual workforce growth between now and 2020 – which can be mostly achieved through an increase in the resident labour force growth – and around 0.5% after. We should also slow down the intake of new naturalised citizens to 10,000 to 15,000 of new births. Otherwise, the impact on social cohesion and the building of our social identity will be too adverse.
Page: 29
In fact, having a lower workforce growth would have a positive impact on productivity. If labour is scarce, firms will substitute labour for capital, skills and technology. We also need to raise the wages and skill levels of foreign workers so that we can attract the more skilled ones here. In fact, the rising foreign worker levies have ironically dampened productivity. Where companies have to reduce wages of foreign workers to cope with the painful escalating costs, they end up only being able to attract lower and lower skilled workers with a lower reservation wage, and who are less productive.
Too many of our companies are addicted to cheap, less-skilled foreign labour. If we continue to feed them with cheap labour, it will only feed the addiction. These companies need restructuring, or rehabilitation, not more drugs.
Apart from having immigrants to simply reduce our non-replacing population, the Government seems to go beyond that because it believes that for Singapore to be a first-tier, dynamic city like London and New York, it needs to have a large population.
PWC's 2012 Report on Cities of Opportunity's ranking of the top cities of the world had smaller cities, like Toronto and Stockholm, ranked among the top five. Singapore is ranked seventh. In an increasingly virtual world, beta cities, smaller cities, like Toronto, San Francisco, Stockholm and Sydney – all with city populations smaller than Singapore – challenge the traditional cosmopolitan centres like New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. Interestingly, the same PWC report did a baseline number projection of all the cities for 2025 and it projected a 3.6 million employment and 5.7 million total population for Singapore in 2025.
You may say, well, Singapore is not just a city; it is a country. But if you again look at the 2012-2013 Global Competitiveness Report, four of the top five most competitive countries, including Singapore, have populations under 10 million, and Finland is just as populous as Singapore. And four of the top five countries, apart from Singapore, had a total population annual growth rate of 0.6% from 2001-2010, which is below the OECD average of 0.7%, well below ours of 2.5% between 2000 and 2010, and that projected for the next two decades.
Fundamentally, I think that the population concerns are serious but unnecessarily pessimistic. Yes, we have a low TFR, even if we can increase TFR to 1.5. And the conventional wisdom is that economic dynamism will definitely wane as citizens of prime working age shrink and the healthcare burden
Page: 30
increases and the knee-jerk response hence is then to increase immigration.
I think we can live with a cap of the population at six million by 2030 and still be very dynamic. In fact, many vibrant economies, as I mentioned, among the OECD countries, are already below an old-age support ratio of four and are moving towards a ratio of two as a long-term sustainable rate.
In fact, I believe Singapore is very well-equipped, compared to most OECD countries, to cope with population ageing. First, Singapore is a high savings country, nationally and individually, unlike many developed countries which are mired in debt. Dissaving helps smooth out consumption over time.
Economist Ryan Herzog from Gonzaga University, in a March 2012 paper, showed that the effects of population ageing on growth is weakened as saving rates decline and trade openness remains high. In other words, Singapore would need to save less and consume more, to sustain our growth rates.
In Singapore, we need a deeper discussion also on an orderly and sustainable use of the nation's reserves and people's savings to maintain economic vitality. One measure is the use of reserves to invest in new strategic industries. Temasek Holdings, in particular, instead of just focusing on generating high financial returns from overseas investments that have no positive spin-offs for the local economy, ought to be vested with this mission.
But I do think there is much to do still in other areas to maintain our competitiveness. We need a more compelling economic model that includes how we can execute well those economic strategies that promote productivity and innovation. Obviously, we need more than the Productivity and Innovation Credit. We need to reinvent how we see ourselves doing business and creating value in future. We need to invest in disruptive innovations, producing not just the highest end goods, but the lower end products and services that are demanded in emerging Asia.
We must stop simply flogging the higher productivity horse, if productivity is merely about doing the same with less. What we need to do is, to do different things, and this depends on people driving innovation. We need to revamp our education system to focus on young people who are enterprising and think out of the box and have the passion and stop just focusing on high PISA scores as a target.
Page: 31
In the short term, I know that many companies are suffering labour shortages which are affecting operations. I work in the non-profit sector which feels the brunt probably even more severely than the private and public sectors and have many friends who are business owners.
For us to go up the value chain, we need to continually restructure. We need creative destruction, and many low value-adding businesses would need to exit. In the older days, I think we worked more actively, for example, with our neighbours to develop the Sijori growth triangle, and we would actively identify and negotiate the closing down and relocation of low value added manufacturing plants to our neighbours. So, what are the equivalent plans today? Because if you exit these firms, and, with them, the lower skilled foreign labour, you can bring in higher skilled foreign labour to fill the positions at higher VA companies coming in through EDB's attraction. So, why do we express great alarm today when some firms leave, when I think it should be naturally expected that some will do so and should do so? Of course, we should be alarmed if the ones that we want to stay, leave.
What we must do better is to help these companies exit and adjust. Delaying would only postpone the pain, and reduce our ability to transition to a knowledge-based economy. There needs to be industry-specific micro-economic policies and programmes to deal with the unit contacts of each industry. But we also need strong safety nets and transitional programmes for workers who are dislocated in the process.
SMEs must also consider merging for greater scale economies. We must also upgrade jobs, especially blue collar jobs. Such jobs should be respected and they deserve a decent living wage. This will attract more Singaporeans into such jobs. In Australia, for example, the blue collar workers are the new rich, as we read in the papers, and, in fact, I think last year, they reported that they earn more on average than those sitting behind a desk. Construction workers there earn an average of S$58,000 a year, and their total construction costs, mind you, are only marginally higher than ours.
However, I do accept that, in the short term, it will take some time to adjust. Hence, I think the Workers' Party's position is too drastic and there needs to be some net foreign labour growth in the short term for companies that are still restructuring and to import people with skills that we may not have enough of.
But well beyond the economic issues, there are the social concerns, which I believe are at least as critical as the economic ones. And these have not
Page: 32
received sufficient attention in the paper, even if the proposal to moderate the population increase to six million is adopted. In the first place, I think we have an obsessive focus on GDP, even if it is just a tool. A recent Bloomberg editorial, reproduced in Today, makes good points about how GDP is an imperfect measure of progress.
GDP only measures output which has a monetary value and makes no claims on the value of that output to the human person or society. It includes things that are profitable and not very beneficial to society, like cigarettes, and I will even say things like excessive tuition; and excludes things that are not profitable but beneficial, like the work of the homemaker or the volunteer. GDP also undervalues the work of people working so hard in the charity sector, where workers typically take a passion discount.
If we are talking about what benefits Singaporeans, why are we focused mostly on economic, physical, material and financial indicators? Singaporeans are saying that they want broader measures of success. And Singaporeans are reacting strongly to the White Paper because many are questioning how the high average GDP growth over the past few years has benefited them. And I am not even talking about whether higher order needs, such as self-actualisation, are being met.
GDP also only measures average income and, as we know, our own high GDP growth has been positively correlated with widening income disparity. We need to pay much more careful attention to this and, in this regard, I would urge the Government to reconsider the minimum wage, which has been implemented well in some economies with little adverse impact on employment. Otherwise, we would just be in the company of only a handful of countries like Yemen, Somalia and Tonga with no minimum wage. Redistributing income to low-income earners is never the same as being able to earn a fair living wage in the first place. The former affects one's sense of self-worth, while the latter preserves the dignity of the human person. For the lower income and the middle income, life continues to be a struggle. On the ground, the issues of the escalating cost of living and the physical infrastructure squeeze are well enunciated.
I have argued previously that we need two Singapores in terms of costs to cater to the widening income disparity. In the past, I could say that we had cheap options in Singapore. But, nowadays, cheap options are increasingly being eliminated. The increasing on-the-ground perception among the middle and lower income is that the Government is pro-business and pro-rich. Singapore is one of the best places to live in, but only if you can afford it. We have just
Page: 33
been ranked the sixth most expensive city in the world in one survey.
I believe that the Government needs to do more to stabilise costs, as it is difficult for many households to deal with high and unexpected cost increases. Unfettered free markets do not produce the best outcomes. In fact, are markets really free in Singapore when actually Government intervenes and controls quite a lot of policy levers? In general, the Government needs to intervene more to ameliorate the effects of economic policies, which include the population policies.
But, I think, well beyond the issues of income equity, costs and personal well-being, there are the issues of identity, values and belonging which many have spoken about.
We might be a nation of immigrants. But the reality before and after the Independence of Singapore is quite different. Before Independence, we were a British colony and I think the issue of building a national identity did not arise. In the early days, there was preoccupation with immense social problems as immigrants flowed in. Later, after the war, the focus was on meeting basic needs and catering to the demand for more self-governance.
After Independence, we are trying to forge a Singaporean identity, even as we try to meet the basic needs of all Singaporeans. We are now not yet 50 years old. And in nation-building terms, we are a mere teenager. As teenagers, we are still unsure about our own identity. It is fluid, it is evolving; and there is a lot of angst as manifested perhaps in us finding our voice and expressing our views strongly. There are also, of course, many real concerns about the stresses of living in Singapore. But just as teens find comfort in friends who are like them, Singaporeans, too, want to engage with other Singaporeans in the common purpose of building a shared identity and dealing with common problems.
As a people, Singaporeans welcome diversity and have always been welcoming of foreigners, because we ourselves are diverse. But if we are mixed with too many people who are too different from us, this crucial part of identity building goes awry. And even while we argue about the exact numbers, let us make sure we continue to treat migrants well. They are persons with their dignity, too.
But at the end of the day, Singaporeans also need to feel that they are truly valued as persons, with unique interests and desires, and that they are not just a factor of production. They need to feel that they are the ends. That they matter
Page: 34
as a group also, with a shared set of values, shared heritage and shared experiences that build that common identity.
We want to build a home, not a hotel. A hotel may be more luxurious than our home and have more services; but we could not possibly afford to stay there forever. When we live in a home that we are proud of, we can then be more welcoming of foreign guests to stay. And maybe then we will feel in a happier frame of mind to have more babies.
Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, I listened to the debate with wonder in the last few days. At first, the PAP seemed content on debating the Workers' Party's proposal more than the White Paper. Then, some PAP Members began to echo Workers' Party positions. I appreciate the honour that is bestowed on the Workers' Party by this kind of attention. Madam, I must remind the House that what is called a roadmap on a White Paper requesting this House to endorse will change Singapore drastically in less than 20 years' time.
The Workers' Party thinks that this roadmap is wrong. The PAP Government is driving with an upside-down roadmap. We are not trying to be funny when we change the title around to \"A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore\". As a rational and responsible co-driver, it is our duty to tell the driver that he is reading the roadmap upside down. Mdm Speaker, allow me to distribute a table to show the differences between the Government's proposal and the Workers' Party's proposal.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]
Mr Low Thia Khiang: The first problem is that Singapore has seen declining birth rates for nearly 40 years. Yet, all the Government is doing in the latest enhancement to the Marriage and Parenthood Package is to increase incentives to get young couples to have more babies. Why is the Government continuing to use a method that has not worked? Why does it not see there are serious roadblocks, such as high housing costs, lack of family and social support, lack of quality childcare options, and bad work-life balance that are preventing young couples from marrying earlier and having more babies?
The second problem is that low birth rates are leading to a shrinking citizen core. Instead of focusing on removing the roadblocks to set birth rates on the
Page: 35
path to recovery, the Government wants to use immigration to top up shortfalls. At the highest rate of handling out new citizenships at current birth rates, there will be 25,000 new citizens to 30,000 citizen births a year. This is almost one is to one.
The third problem is immigrant integration. Given the friction between Singaporeans and immigrants in recent years, my confidence in the Government to solve this problem is not very strong. The best way to integrate immigrants is organically through the family and the school; not the highly politicised People's Association (PA).
The fourth problem is the ageing population. Here, the Government needs to have a serious mindset change. The Government sees our senior citizens as fiscal and healthcare burdens. The Government's solution is again immigration, as though by increasing the support ratio, our senior citizens will be magically supported.
Is the Government admitting that the CPF scheme is causing insufficient savings that our senior citizens will become a burden? Is the Government admitting that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control that our senior citizens will need to be subsidised heavily?
The fifth problem is a slowing economy. The key plank in the Workers' Party's proposal is to increase the resident workforce through promotion of labour force participation of women and seniors. Like the Government, we aim for the same stretch rate of productivity growth. But the Government's solution is contradictory. It tells businesses that they are addicted to cheap foreign workers and need to improve their productivity instead. Yet, the Government is proposing to use foreign workforce growth to boost the slowing economy. Would foreign workforce growth not suppress productivity growth? This is like trying to go forward and backward at the same time.
The sixth problem is infrastructural strain. The Prime Minister recently admitted that the Government lacked 20/20 foresight and failed to prepare the urban infrastructure to accommodate sudden immigration inflow. Instead of rethinking the immigration policy, it now promises to build ahead to accommodate more immigrants. The Land Use Plan promises to build a high quality living environment for all Singaporeans. But the plan is drawn up to support the future population, which will be majority immigrants.
Page: 36
The trouble with the Government is not that it lacks 20/20 foresight in infrastructural development, but that it fails to recognise that the problem is its immigration policy in the first place. The problems of low birth rates and ageing population lie in a social and physical environment that is not conducive for family life. Therefore, the solutions must be sought by focusing on promoting the quality of life of Singaporean families. By focusing on immigration, the Government is using the cause of the problems today as the solution for tomorrow.
What the Government is doing is kicking the can down the road. The Government has been using immigration to grow the workforce in the past 30 years. It is proposing to continue to do so for the next 20 years. The Government said that it \"hopes\" for an increase in the TFR to 1.4 or 1.5. Madam, this is a matter of national survival, and the Government is only weakly hoping with an ambiguous target with no specified timetable. Without a TFR recovery plan with clear targets, our birth rates are not going to go up. So, when 2030 arrives, what solution are we going to turn to? Immigration again? Another White Paper to project a population size of 10 million in 2050 as a roadmap? Anyway, let me tell this House, if we travel down this roadmap, Singaporeans will become a minority in their own country.
In 2001, the United Nations published a study to consider whether Replacement Migration is a viable option and a solution to a declining and ageing population. The study warned that \"The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past.\" The study argued that comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes in a long-term perspective are needed to address the challenges.
20/20 foresight requires the Government to think long term, and long term, must be 50 years down the road, not a mere 17 years. Birth rate recovery takes a long time. We need to start now. Stop kicking the can down the road. As long as immigration continues to be an easy option, there is nothing to stop the Government from taking the easy path.
Focus on TFR recovery now. While we move towards TFR recovery, the Workers' Party proposes that we increase labour-force participation rates to grow the resident workforce without adding to the population.
This is a much more sustainable solution than an ever-growing population on a small island. And let us not forget Singapore is a nation, not a city in a big
Page: 37
nation. A sustainable Singapore is one that keeps its national identity strong and this requires the population to be made up of majority Singaporeans.
Continued dependence on foreign workforce growth will just kick the can of economic restructuring down the road. Economic restructuring is necessarily painful. Immigration prevents us from moving away from labour-intensive industries to develop an innovative and entrepreneurial economy with capital-intensive medium enterprises. The Government can help ease the pain by providing more support to local SMEs as we go through this economic transition.
The Government has tried to downplay the 6.9 million population number for 2030. It is now a projection, a planning parameter, a worst-case scenario. Can the Government clarify once and for all whether it has control over immigration or is immigration an impending tsunami we have to plan for? I do not understand how 6.9 million can be a worst-case scenario. Do we not have to pass through the best-case scenario of 5.8 million to get to 6.9 million? The Government seems to be saying that it does not have the control of the bus it is driving Singaporeans to town, and is not able to stop at the good part of the town and we all may end up in the bad part of the town. This is unacceptable.
But even before we can talk about getting to town, does the Government have a destination to bring us to? It has a roadmap, but a roadmap is useless without a destination. The Government's roadmap is saying, \"just continue to drive straight ahead at the same speed\". But the Workers' Party wants to arrive in a sustainable Singapore with a dynamic Singaporean majority. Madam, I will now speak in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, people are the core of a nation. Without people, there is no nation. People are the foundation of a nation and the core factor affecting the prosperity of a nation. Therefore, population is a very important issue, but it is also a very complicated issue where there is wide-ranging ramification of its effect with just a small tweak. More importantly, population issue should not be treated like any other policy issues and simply handled based on macro-analysis of the statistics. People are not commodities and could not be treated as mere numbers.
The White Paper issued by the Government projected that our population would be 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030. And the relevant authorities had also published various plans to develop our infrastructure to cater for this population growth and assured Singaporeans that they could enjoy quality of
Page: 38
life.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said at the White Paper press conference that this is the first time the Government has drawn up a comprehensive roadmap for our population development. Subsequently, some Ministers said the 6.9 million was only \"a worst-case scenario\". Then, during the Parliamentary debates, a PAP Member moved an amendment Motion to delete the words \"population policy\" and said this 6.9 million should only be a planning parameter for the development of our infrastructure.
So, this projection of a 6.9 million population for 2030 has become only a \"worst-case scenario\". If that is the case, then what would be the population size in a \"not-so-worse-case scenario\"? And what would be the size of population in 2030 in a \"best-case scenario\"?
Even if this 6.9 million is just a planning parameter, but if by 2030, the population size happens to coincide with the Workers' Party's projection of 5.8 million, then would we not have over-projected the population by one million, and would this not be a waste of our precious resources? This runs contrary to our established principle of efficient usage of our limited resources as a tiny nation with a small population.
A netizen wrote in Zaobao online, \"What kind of a joke is this? We all know that the Government holds the key to open the door to immigrants and bringing in foreign workers. And it could control how much or how little, how fast or how slow the influx, just like a tap that controls the water flowing into a pool. These are all in the Government's planning. And the Government cannot even decide, cannot ascertain whether we want 5 million or 6 million, then this glamorous Population White Paper is as good as a heap of waste paper.\"
The main suggestion in the White Paper was to allow foreign immigrants to become Singapore Citizens to make up for the shortfall of our local population, and allow this group of new citizens to be part of the \"strong Singapore Core\". Therefore, there is already an issue on how many of those in the \"strong Singapore Core\" are thorough-bred Singaporeans. To make the matter worse, by 2030, this so-called \"strong Singapore Core\" would only make up 55% of the 6.9 million. What then would be the percentage of thorough-bred Singaporeans in our total population?
I am not making a deliberate attempt to differentiate a thorough-bred Singaporean and a new immigrant. We should treat the new citizens equally.
Page: 39
Well, at least they are prepared to give up their original citizenship to become Singapore citizens. But we all know that they are human, their values, their outlook on life, their world view and their habits would differ depending on where they come from, and the environment they are in. And they need time to be integrated into our society and our environment.
Singapore's stressful lifestyle and new housing estates where neighbours generally mind their own businesses and do not know one another is not a conducive environment for the new immigrants to be integrated. Looking at the timeline, the White Paper estimates that our population will grow by one million every 10 years. I think our population ratio will not be able to digest such a large volume of foreign immigrants.
Our ancestors were all foreign immigrants and the Government has spent decades of hard work to develop a sense of belonging among us and to mould us into a cohesive society we are today with a sense of national identity. People also now understand the rule of law. We should cherish and protect what we have achieved during our process of nation building. This is more important than our economic growth and our material achievements.
I am worried that this strategy of depending on large foreign immigrants to make up for a shortfall of our citizens would result in a road of no return for our nation.
Please do not forget, we not only need to integrate new immigrants who became citizens, we also need to deal with foreigners who are not citizens. When our total foreign population size becomes so large that we are not able to effectively integrate them, the overall characteristics and quality of the Singapore population will also change. I think all know that a quantitative change will result in a qualitative change.
PAP Ministers and most of our Members of Parliament are supportive of using the strategy to make up for the shortfall in our population. They felt that Singapore was made up of foreign immigrants as our ancestors were all foreign immigrants, therefore, now we should be able to take in new immigrants like what we did in the past, and form a \"strong Singapore Core\".
But I think this logic or theory has a sort of memory lapse. Let us not forget, even though most of our ancestors came mainly from China, India and other neighbouring countries, it took decades of nation building before this generation of Singaporeans could be considered bona fide Singaporeans with
Page: 40
a sense of common identity. So, even if we are overseas, and we do not know one another, we could somehow identify whether they are Singaporeans.
So, if the logic is, since we were foreign immigrants then, we should be able to accept foreign immigrants now. Similarly, since we were part of Malaysia in the past, should we not be able to merge with Malaysia as and when we want?
In the early days of nation building, we were worried that the population would grow too fast and the economy and infrastructure would not be able to catch up, so we had a very aggressive family planning policy. But now, we need large numbers of foreigners to make up the shortfall as our population could not sustain the economic growth.
The policy of curbing birth rates by the somewhat mandatory sterilisation might have worked then. But 20 years later, if we realise that our population is too large and ageing at a faster rate than now, we could not simply kill these people. That is why I said this is a road of no return.
The Workers' Party does not think the Government should take this risk. We would oppose till the end. Let me repeat: the Workers' Party opposes this White Paper and we would also not support the amended Motion.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, thank you very much for allowing me to participate in this debate. In Mandarin, Madam.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] After the Population White Paper was released, Singaporeans were very concerned, and they reacted strongly to the White Paper. There was a lot of discussion and the debate in Parliament has also been intense, just like how Mr Low Thia Khiang has spoken on the topic. However, to the public, the debate in Parliament is like a tree adorned with colourful lights, dazzling but confusing. In other words, many Singaporeans still find it difficult to understand the Parliament's stand on the issue.
In the past fortnight, I met a lot of union leaders and grassroots leaders to discuss and exchange views, and gather their feedback. In general, they have three concerns. Firstly, they would like to know what is the main problem that
Page: 41
the Population White Paper is trying to address. Secondly, what are the main concerns of Members of Parliament? Thirdly, after the debate, what is the consensus that Parliament is trying to achieve?
Firstly, what is the Population White Paper trying to address? Mdm Speaker, so long as the fertility rate falls below 2.1, we will definitely face the crisis caused by the three \"peaks\". The first peak is the peak in employment. When the number of graduates falls behind the number of retirees, the overall number in the labour force will decrease. Therefore, after the employment number has peaked, the country will start to go downhill.
The second peak is the population peak. When the number of newborn babies falls behind the number of deaths, when the fertility rate is lower than the mortality rate, the nation's population will start to shrink. The other peak is the ageing population. The decrease in labour force and population means that the ratio between young people and the elderly will continue to decrease, and the pace of ageing in our population will intensify.
Even though all countries will face the crisis brought about by the three \"peaks\", the pace of each country will differ. For example, a senior leader of China once said, \"China will also experience the three 'peaks': the labour force peak in 2020; the population peak in 2030; the ageing population peak in 2040.\" The situation is similar in Singapore. According to the Population White Paper, by 2020, the total labour force would have reached a peak; by 2025, the population would have peaked; by 2030, the ageing population would have peaked. The difference between China and Singapore is that, in China, they will reach a different peak every 10 years. While for Singapore, it is every five years. In other words, the speed whereby we arrive at the three peaks will be faster than other countries. The question is, are we able to handle it?
The problems brought about by the three \"peaks\" will not wait for us. Under such circumstances, what is the main problem that Parliament should be concerned about? Mdm Speaker, in my view, the main problem that Parliament should be concerned about is what Singaporeans are concerned about. This is because the objective of the Population White Paper is to ensure that Singaporeans can continue to live better lives. Therefore, during our discussion as parliamentarians, we should not just think of our own views but, more importantly, we should listen and feel with our hearts what are Singaporeans' concerns about the Population White Paper. What are their concerns about Singapore in 2020, 2030?
Page: 42
After discussions with union leaders and grassroots leaders, I would like to relay their views. Generally, there are three areas. Their first concern is to have good jobs and salaries. It is good that we talk about pushing for companies to upgrade, but we must also realise that talk is easier than action. If we act with undue haste and hurt businesses, workers will ultimately be affected. At the same time, union leaders also reminded the labour Members that even though it is all right for the economy and pace of importing foreign labour to slow down, unemployment rate should not go up and wages should not remain stagnant. Indeed, their jobs are stressful, but it is even more stressful if they do not have jobs.
(In English): As we discuss how we should tighten the growth of foreign manpower and the total workforce, it is important for us to recognise that what we are dealing with is really about the welfare of the workers. My point here really is that as we address this issue of economic restructuring, as far as the union leaders are concerned, a soft-landing approach is better than a hard landing approach. So, yes, I think some of the Members here may be in a hurry to try to force the pace of restructuring. Please bear in mind that there are implications not only for businesses but it may also cause higher structural unemployment and, as a result, the workers will eventually be hurt. Therefore, let us go for a soft landing rather than a hard landing.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Secondly, residents tell me they are concerned whether they can have a good life and a good environment in future. In other words, they feel during the course of discussion that it should be clear that Singaporeans expect the Government and Parliament to improve on areas we have not done well in as soon as possible. For areas we have done well, more should be done to make it better. They are worried that as we discuss new solutions to today's problems, new problems will arise in future. Therefore, in terms of daily issues like food, clothing, transport, housing, healthcare and education, our union workers and residents hope that in future, all these will be more affordable, more comprehensive and developed faster.
In addition, we must take extra care of our elderly Singaporeans, not because we view them as a burden. Mr Low Thia Khiang said a while ago that the PAP Government views elderly Singaporeans as a burden, I do not agree with his views. I am already 58 years old, one day, I will also become an old folk. I believe that this generation of Singaporeans does not treat the older generation Singaporeans as a burden. We want to take special care of them because, in the past, they had made great contributions in our process of nation building. Hence, it is our duty to take care of them, not because they are a
Page: 43
burden to society.
At the same time, our residents and workers are also concerned that, as the population increases, we must ensure that our sky remains blue, our water clear, our fields green and our air sweet.
The third area our residents and workers are concerned about is whether Singapore will be a good country in the future, with good citizens. What is a \"good country\"? Well, it is one that takes care of its citizens, one that has citizens' interest at heart. How do you define \"good citizens\"? These are citizens that know how to take care of the country and fellow citizens, who have the interests of the nation at heart. In other words, for the good of Singapore, not only are they concerned about pursuing their own ideals, they can also see the bigger picture, so that we can always be a country that can hold its head up high, and citizens that can stand proud.
Mdm Speaker, since we know that the main issue is to address the challenges brought about by the three \"peaks\", the main concerns are good jobs, good salaries, good life, good environment, a good country and good citizens. Residents and workers would then like to know, after five days of discussions in Parliament, what is the next step. I believe that after the debate, we should strive for consensus. At present, there are many views in Parliament, and the divergence of views is great. If we move in different directions after the debate, the challenges brought about by the three \"peaks\" cannot be addressed. If the issue is not resolved, not only will the population shrink, the economy, the society and the nation will also go downhill. I, therefore, urge fellow parliamentarians, as elected representatives of the people, to seek common ground while reserving our differences, to achieve consensus as far as possible, and move ahead together to serve the country.
In the future development of our country, we must identify our core objectives and rally Singaporeans to strive for the most benefits, the least harm, better lives and a better future. After listening to three days of debate, I feel that we have consensus in at least three areas.
Firstly, having more babies is better than having more new immigrants. The Government, Members of Parliament, Opposition parties all agree on this. Perhaps, the difference is that Mr Low Thia Khiang believes the Government is only using monetary incentives to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies. I do not agree with this view. In my years in the Cabinet, from Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, to then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong and our current
Page: 44
Prime Minister, all of them are very concerned about encouraging Singaporeans to have more babies.
In actual fact, we have studied many countries and adopted many concepts, for example, in advanced countries like Denmark and Sweden. In Denmark, women are highly educated and the participation rate in the workforce is very high. At the same time, their fertility rate is higher than ours, at 1.85. Singapore's fertility rate is 1.2 or 1.3. They are also very happy, because their spouses also take care of the family. In these societies, it is deemed socially unacceptable if the husbands do not spend time with their families during the weekends. So, the husbands also put in their best efforts; likewise, the community, the Government and employers, too. Singapore is striving in the same direction. Therefore, the views expressed by the opposition parties and the Government are actually similar, which is, not to rely solely on monetary incentives, but a holistic approach.
Moving ahead, I hope that parliamentarians will regard raising the fertility rate as a national priority, to see beyond partisan politics and work together to encourage more Singaporeans to have more babies.
The second area that we have in common is that both sides believe that it is better to have a lower total population than to have a higher total population. Personally, I think 5.9 million is not practical, 6.9 million is not ideal. I believe that if we work together closely, we can achieve a better balance between the two. Actually, this is not only my personal view. When Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean spoke on the first day of the debate, he said that if we can achieve our objective of creating a better life for Singaporeans, and the total population number is kept lower than 6.9 million, it is actually a good thing. So, we reiterated several times that 6.9 million is not our target but a projection for planning of infrastructure.
We must also understand that there are actually ways to continuously lower total population growth, if we can work together. For example, in terms of work distribution, just as Deputy Prime Minister Teo had mentioned, in future, two-thirds of the population will be professionals, one-third will be general workers. For general workers, a lot of jobs are positions that cannot attract Singaporeans, and wages are not good enough. In the past, the idea is that if you have a job that does not attract Singaporeans, then you should look for foreigners. Looking forward, our views have changed. For example, we can use technology and innovation, or robots. In the USA, the use of robots is widely encouraged to improve competitiveness. I believe that if we go in the same direction, we can also keep the total population numbers as low as possible. But as I said
Page: 45
previously, we should not act in undue haste because it will not only hit businesses but also hurt workers.
Thirdly, another consensus is that the livelihood of Singaporeans has to continuously improve. This is in terms of daily cost of living and quality of living.
Presently, residents are concerned, \"with the Population White Paper, will areas that already require improvement further deteriorate?\" For areas that are showing improvements, but with the increase in population, will the situation turn for the worse in future? Hence, I believe that Parliament should give Singaporeans a clear affirmation that areas which require improvements now will be fixed in the short term and we will do better in the long term.
Mdm Speaker, the challenges brought about by the \"three peaks\" are inevitable. During the course of trying to address these challenges, if what we achieve is a \"good economy\" with a \"bad\" society, or a \"good\" society with a ‘bad' economy, ultimately, the economy will not be good, neither will be the society, people's lives will not be good either. However, if we have the spirit of serving the people at heart and work together to alleviate the concerns of the public, give our citizens clear assurances, reinforce their confidence in our future, I believe, that Singaporeans will have better lives in 2020 and 2030.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, I hope that this House, after three days or, by tomorrow, five days of debate, we can come to a consensus on the key priority areas for us to move forward. I hope that we can speak in one voice, act in one heart and serve our people as one Parliament. Let us work together regardless of parties, regardless of idealism. Let us work together to maximise the upsides, minimise the downsides of a growing population. Together, we can overcome the crisis of the three peaks so that Singaporeans can live better in the year 2020, 2030 and beyond. Madam, I support the Motion with the amendment. [Applause.]
Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member):\tMdm Speaker, I would like to make a short speech in Tamil before proceeding with my English speech.
(In Tamil): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, I would like to make a short speech in Tamil before I proceed with my substantive speech in English.
Page: 46
I am happy to register my views in this House on the White Paper – A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore as a population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge.
It is important to plan on matters related to population for the long-term success, relevance and survivability of our country and people.
I wish to commend the Ministers and the Government for taking time and effort in putting together this thorough and comprehensive plan related to our population matters. It is, indeed, a bold step. The Government has prepared this White Paper after taking into consideration the expressed concerns of Singaporeans, and this courage was what was espoused some 2,000 years ago by a Tamil sage called Thiruvalluvar in his couplets, specifically, couplet no 382:
\"Courage, generosity, knowledge, motivation are the four essential elements of a successful leader\" – or, in those days, kings.
[அஞ்சாமை ஈகை,அறிவு ஊக்கம் இந்நான்கும்
ஞ்சாமை வேந்தற்கு இயல்பு-குறள் 382]
I am happy to note that in preparing this White Paper, the Government has involved more than 2,000 Singaporeans and obtained more than 2,500 feedback. One of the good attributes of Government is to listen to the people's views and take action. And in this connection, I wish to bring to the Government's attention the views of the Indian community, particularly the Tamil-speaking community.
The Singapore Government has given Tamil an official language status here which is appreciated not only by the people who live here but also by the Tamil diaspora.
A number of Indians, too, came here as immigrants. Because of the perception that the Indians speaking other Indian languages come in large numbers, more than the number of Tamils living in Singapore, I understand that the Tamil-speaking Singaporeans fear that the Tamil language may lose its importance. It is their wish that the Tamil language, which is protected by our Constitution, would continue to be a living language here.
Page: 47
In this regard, I recall Minister Mrs Grace Fu's assurance the day before yesterday that the ratio of the Malay community will continue to be maintained in Singapore. The Chinese, whichever country they may come from, will speak their mother tongue in Mandarin. Likewise, the Malays, wherever they may come from will speak their mother tongue Malay. But it is not so in the case of the Indians. The Tamil-speaking Singaporeans feel that if their ratio is maintained and kept the same as at the time that the language was recognised as an official language, then their language would continue to be a living language here. May I that the Minister and the Government take this into consideration.
While I generally support this White Paper, I have different views on some aspects of it which I hope to elaborate in my English speech.
(In English): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to contribute to this discussion on the population projections of Singapore – an integral factor to the long-term success, relevance and survivability of our country and our people.
Firstly, let me begin with commending the Government and my colleagues for the time and effort they put into this very thorough and comprehensive plan for our population and related areas. It is a brave and bold move by Government to release this Paper which speaks about a larger population in the future, although crowding and congestion appear to be a significant grouse at the ground level today. The Paper is more like the bitter pill which is often not liked but presents the fact and remedy in the best interests of the person and future generations of Singaporeans. This forward planning is commendable and, in an effort as futuristic as this, there may be differences in approaches and attempts but the Paper needs to be seen with the perspective of an overall plan and in the best interests of all stakeholders in Singapore.
This was necessary as the Government aimed to meet the three objectives of this exercise – to strengthen the Singaporean Core in our society, to create more high-quality jobs enough for a more educated workforce and to ensure a high quality living environment here. However, there are parts of this Paper I do not agree with and I would like to share these thoughts and I hope they will be given due consideration.
Keeping Singaporeans at the Core. The Marriage and Parenthood package will help Singaporeans marry and have children earlier. However, I believe it is not enough to get the desired effect of pushing our Total Fertility Rate (TFR) from the current rate of 1.2 to 1.4. Many of the initiatives in the package are
Page: 48
encouraging but they are typically the incremental sort of measures that the Government has been trying for years now. Those have not yielded much result, and I feel these would be not effective as well. The problem is many of the measures in the package designed to help parents with the costs of starting a family are one-off measures that may alleviate some of these costs in the beginning of the journey of starting a family.
Raising a child is a long process with cost pressures at several junctures along the way from when the child is a new-born, to being an infant, to Primary school, and then to Secondary school at the very least, even if we do not take into account the tertiary education. The brutal truth is that cost is high at all of these stages from buying simple things like milk powder and diapers to going to school and paying for tuition classes and so on. And this is provided the child is completely healthy, otherwise medical costs are an add-on. So, what they need is, in fact, help continuously along the way.
I feel that while economic growth and addressing the concerns of low fertility rate with the economic benefits may help to some extent, a large need will be to emphasise the family values and shifting the cultural importance away from the purely monetary measurement. Today, fertility indexes remain healthy mainly in societies where binding force is beyond wealth and where success measures are beyond money. A change in Singapore may be possible considering the horizon of time for discussions is 17 years up to 2030 and not a short term. More thoughts on making this shift than presently mentioned in the White Paper will be welcomed.
Under the area that the Government could have done to help Singaporeans with respect to starting a family is where Singaporeans marry foreigners. I understand it is quite difficult now for foreign spouses to be given PRs and I think this should not be the case. In the past few years and even now when we give PRs to eligible foreign candidates, their wives are also extended PRs to help them settle down in Singapore. Then why should Singaporeans be made to face uncertainties and instability in their marriages just because they choose to marry a foreigner?
While Minister Grace Fu highlighted the other day that the Government understands this concern and agrees to help Singaporeans with such cases, it is important to have a timeframe to integrate these Singaporeans. At least, within a year upon their arrival in Singapore, we should give them PR status so that their early integration will only help them to be part of the workforce. I think such cases should be given priority so that these couples can get on with their lives with more certainty and contribute towards the TFR and strengthening the
Page: 49
Singapore Core. Moreover, it is important in this whole exercise that Singaporeans are given priority and their sense of importance and belonging to the nation is not eroded. I feel that the White Paper can improve in this regard in placating Singaporeans and reassuring them that they have first priority in all matters, ensuring a vibrant and sustainable economy.
Moving on, I would like to register my appreciation for the Government in attempting to create high-value jobs for Singaporeans and this will hopefully lead to a higher income and better quality of life for them, at least in terms of material needs. I am not entirely sure though if the approach of pushing businesses up the value-chain is the best approach to take.
Firstly, moving up the value chain makes our industrial landscape here a narrower one. The further we move up the value chain, the narrower it is upwards, almost like a pyramid. Are we not taking a risk by narrowing the spread of our economy instead of ensuring a broad and diversified economy where there is a mix of industries, in all types and all stages of the value chain?
Also, as a SME operator myself, I understand the concerns of the business community in wanting to know and understand what timeframe the Government has in mind in getting companies to move up the value chain.
This, obviously, will take time and cannot be done instantaneously. But it seems that companies here are expected to do that soonest. Will the Government be helping companies making this shift with assistance schemes? Will there be Government help in creating opportunities for allowing businesses to move up the value-chain as the nature of their businesses otherwise may make it difficult for them to do so?
I also worry that moving up the value chain too quickly may lead to frictional or structural unemployment, especially if workers, probably older ones, are unable to train to fully make such a transition. This may dislodge the labour market and create a scenario where some segments of the population find themselves irrelevant to the demands of the industry.
While we speak of moving the economy up the value chain, it needs to be noted that more than 60% of the Singaporean workforce are employed by SMEs. Many of the economic activities at consumer level like retail and F&B remain an SME domain. These service sector jobs are labour-intensive, which require working in shifts, standing long hours while at work, including weekends and public holidays. Today, the young Singaporean is unwilling to accept these jobs
Page: 50
and, as has been pointed out in the White Paper, aspire for PMET jobs. This is a key reason for foreign workers being hired by SMEs today and not the cost advantage, as is perceived commonly. If the SMEs are unable to hire people, they will cease to exist. By the way, this will hurt the very core of the Singaporean society which we are keen to protect.
As has been highlighted by SBF and the many chambers of commerce, the shortage of right talent and the associated imbalance in the labour market, in terms of costs, will force even larger companies, and not just SMEs, to operate outside of our eco-system, much to the detriment of the Singaporean Core. This is no longer a myth as newspapers have highlighted how foreign companies are willing to leave if this situation does not ease up. While there is no one silver bullet, I urge the Government to identify and isolate sectors where our Singaporean labour force can cope in terms of quantity and quality and selectively impose restrictions on hiring of foreign talents. An investor is likely to look at returns even if it is a Singaporean investor and, therefore, seek the right talent ultimately. Our blanket actions, I fear, may affect long-term investments from local businesses and foreign businesses alike across the economy. It may not be right to allow the entire economy to suffer for this reason.
As a retail business operator, I wish to voice out the difficulties we have been facing in the business over the past one year. The business is today constrained in terms of growth not because of investments or opportunity but because of insufficient labour to run the potential businesses. This is not only leading to loss of business opportunities but a compromise on service levels built with pains and the years of investments. The continuous tightening in policies for hiring foreigners as front liners at stores is straining the local workforce to the extent that locals do not want to work in this sector. That is why the idea put forward by some of my Members here in this House to keep foreign workforce growth rate at zero is one that will kill businesses here, whether local or foreign. The business community is already concerned by the tightening of the workforce as proposed by the White Paper. I cannot imagine anything tighter than that so I do not understand the merits of reducing it even further because doing so will inevitably result in loss of jobs, thus, ultimately, hurting Singaporeans.
Further, a lot of this economic strategy is built on assumptions, such as that productivity may help fuel growth, in the context of this slower workforce growth, for the rest of this decade. It is a risk to hinge so much on productivity growth, which we all know is more difficult to come than we may plan or hope for. For instance, if our actual productivity numbers fall short of the projected
Page: 51
numbers, are we going to sit back and allow the economic growth to suffer? Or will we at an appropriate time implement a review to see how the productivity growth is faring and then maybe decide if we want to revise some of these strategies? If so, what is a likely time such a review may be considered?
I think allowing the workforce growth to reduce may create undesirable consequences. The war for talent is already quite heated, and this would obviously worsen that. If this puts an upward pressure on wages, then I fear that we may artificially increase wages here. If companies decide to pass these high costs on to consumers, then we may have created a wage-cost inflationary pressure. With slower growth and inflation increasing, we may run the risk of having stagflation.
So, it is necessary to see that we do not squeeze the workforce growth as much as it hurts the economy, businesses and jobs. Perhaps, this can be done more gradually.
In essence, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill but hope that the Government will consider keeping Singaporeans at the core of their population strategy, and not just economically, but also socially so that they do not feel alienated. Also important that calibrated economic growth is not overdone that it hurts businesses and jobs here.
Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): Mdm Speaker, from day one when the Population White Paper was released, reaction from the ground is swift and negative. Whether the 6.9-million figure is a population projection or target, the White Paper is still a roadmap for Singapore's population policy from now to 2030.
The Government has released a few such roadmaps in the past under the URA concept plan. We were told in this House the population projection in those plans are based on foreseeable trends in economic growth, fertility rate, migration rate and so on over a long period of 40 to 50 years. But alarmingly, this Government has developed a knack for getting the population projection wrong; not in the numbers but in the time taken to reach those numbers.
In the 1991 concept plan, this Government was doing long-term planning based on a population figure of four million. We started the decade with three million and a Singaporean Core of 86%. We ended the decade with four million people
Page: 52
and a Singaporean Core at 74%.
In 2001, this Government put up another concept plan with a higher population projection of 5.5 million as a basis for land use and transportation planning. Again, at that time, we were told in this House that the projected population figure over a period of 40 to 50 years was not a target but a planning parameter, or what is known in recent days as a worst-case scenario.
By 2010, in a short span of 10 years we reached 91% of the 2001 projected worst case scenario population with 30 to 40 years to spare. Our Singaporean Core went down by another 10 percentage point, to 64%. What was projected to happen in 40 to 50 years in 1991 and 2001 became a reality in less than one-quarter of the time envisaged.
In 2007, the ex-Minister for National Development quickly revised the long-term population projection to 6.5 million, which is at the low end of the projected population for 2030 in the Population White Paper. Today, Singaporeans are confronted with a stark population projection again. The Population White Paper, unlike the 40- to 50-year concept plan, has projected our population to hit 6.5 million to 6.9 million over a period of just 18 years, and the percentage of the Singaporean Core would be almost half.
Repeating like clockwork, the Minister for National Development was quick to point out that the 6.9 million is not a target but a worst-case scenario. His predecessor has this to add when he raised the long-term population projection to 6.5 million; the ex-Minister said in 2007 that \"the Government has decided that 6.5 million is a realistic number for the next 40 to 50 years. Whether and when we achieve this figure will depend on many factors.\"
If such 40- to 50-year worst-case scenarios can manifest in less than 10 years, from projection twice, Singaporeans have every good reason to worry about the 6.9 million-projection going forward.
Over the last two decades, this Government has been likened to run Singapore like a company due to its opportunistic approach to grow at all cost. It has grown our population by almost a million a decade since 1991. It did not matter if the infrastructures were not up to scratch, opportunities and money came first.
Based on the upper end figure in the White Paper, our population is again expected to grow by about a million a decade until 2030; and that the
Page: 53
Singaporean Core will drop to almost 50%. The White Paper is not maintaining a strong Singaporean Core; it is shrinking it further. If the experience in 1991 and 2001 is anything to go by, the 6.9 million-projection may not be a worst-case scenario but could well be the worst nightmare for Singapore come 2030.
The trust between the people and the Government had been shaken twice because the line between the projected population and the target population is no longer distinct. Singaporeans do not want to be shaken a third time. Already we have one of the highest population density in the world, and increasing our population further cannot be good for liveability. It cannot be good for quality of life.
This Government has tried to be creative with statistics to allay the fear that we might go the way of Hong Kong and pack Singaporeans into tiny apartments when our population hits 6.9 million. But we are already packed like sardines everywhere today – in the trains, buses, hawker centres, shopping centres and more. Any population increase above 6 million is just unthinkable. If we were to compute the population density for public housing alone, we will understand how dense it is to live in Singapore today.
In 2010, it was reported that 82% of our resident population, or 3.1 million, live in HDB flats. The 2010 figure on land use shows that public housing took up only 7% of the total land mass or about 5,000 hectares in Singapore. This gives us a staggering actual population density of 62,000 people per \tkilometre square for public housing alone. We even beat the densest district in Hong Kong which comes in at slightly above 55,000 per \tkilometre square. When this Government allocates only 7% of the land to accommodate 82% of the resident population, how do you think Singaporeans whom the White Paper addresses as the core of our society and the heart of our nation would feel at the prospect of living with 6.9 million people by 2030? How liveable can Singapore be going forward with more and more people?
According to Forbes report in 2012, the most stressful city in the United States is also among the biggest and the densest. How is this Government going to convince our young people to stay and procreate when commuting to work every day is such a stressful thing to do?
I read with deep concern that this Government intends to optimise our land, limited land space, just to accommodate 6.9 million people by building more housing units in mature estates, wherever pockets of housing land it can find. Mdm Speaker, the Government sees these pockets of land as opportunities but
Page: 54
many of us see these as essential green spaces to keep the sanity of living in a concrete jungle in check. If every piece of green space in a mature estate is measured by a number or value, then we have missed the meaning of quality of life.
The top 10 cities in the Mercer 2012 Quality of Living Index all have lower population density than Singapore, with the exception of Geneva, Switzerland. Geneva is nestled in a region of beautiful lakes, views and mountains for citizens to escape to, away from the stress of high density urban living. We do not have the luxury of such open spaces. So, we should preserve whatever pockets of greenery out there, especially in mature estates, so as to mitigate the stress of living in one of the densest cities in the world.
Different cities in the world have different priorities to become liveable and sustainable. What are our priorities? In the pursuit of growth, this Government has acknowledged that it had neglected to pay close attention to the comfort level of the Singaporean core in areas like transport, housing and other environmental and cultural issues.
While the people should give the Government some time to fix its 20/20 foresight, the Government should also give the people more time to experience what it is really like to live in a country with 5.3 million people with all the shortcomings fixed. Because when yesterday's problems are not fixed, the vision for a better tomorrow is a hard sell. It is a \"no sell\". The irony of the Mercer survey is that Singapore is ranked No 1 in infrastructure, but 25th in quality of living. What that means to me in plain English is that we are way too overcrowded here. This Government may have put its heart and soul into building a dynamic economy for people to come from all over the world to make money here, but has it done the same to building our nation?
In this context, the Workers' Party is asking the Government to do the hard things first, that is, to put its heart and soul to growing the TFR. When young Singaporeans want to have more children here, we would have a nation to call home. Opening the tap to immigrants is easy. This Government has grown our population by about a million a decade since 1991 with relative speed and ease.
We all take different risks in life. This Government wants Singapore to take a risk with 6.9 million people. We, the Workers' Party, want to work with a smaller number and a stronger emphasis on the Singaporean Core. But no matter what numbers we project, the Government of the day has to subject itself to do the will of the people who elected it. I am sure the will of the people
Page: 55
can be felt in your Meet-the-People (MPS), dialogue sessions, feedback sessions and even at the recent polls. We cannot change the past but we can change the future. For that, I oppose the Motion.
Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper was supposed to be a bold vision to chart Singapore's future. Instead, it has amplified the social and political divide amongst Singaporeans. If these extreme views are allowed to fester, and the fundamental concerns are not addressed, this lack of balance could destabilise Singapore.
Hence, as a Nominated Member, I feel compelled to speak up and to speak boldly. I feel compelled to speak up against this divide and to make a call for balance and objectivity from both sides.
We have two camps now. One camp does not want any more foreigners crowding us out. They want a lower cost of living, higher real wages and they want the Government to focus on the immediate, pressing problems of housing, transport and inflation. Perfectly reasonable. Then we have a camp who wants a more open economy, more labour mobility, less pressures on margins and more growth. Also not unreasonable.
But this is not a trade-off between business and the man-in-the street. It is a trade-off between the short term and the long term. It is a trade-off between this generation and next. And it is a trade-off between Singapore versus other high growth countries.
Singaporeans need to see both sides objectively. We need to see this also from an international perspective. Hence, I wish to address these issues from four perspectives: (1) a timing perspective; (2) an international perspective; (3) the fertility rate; and (4) integration.
Let us talk about timing. In the short term, we have labour shortages and infrastructural constraints. More importantly, we have inflation. In the long term, we have demographic challenges, due to an ageing population and a lack of babies.
Our high cost of living has been caused by past Government policy mistakes of not providing enough public housing, healthcare and transportation as our population grew. Record low interest rates have also caused asset
Page: 56
inflation. Inflation is an unequal tax. It hurts the poor more than the rich. Inflation hit the lowest 20% of households by 5.6% in 2012. Inflation is regressive. These issues have cropped up a lot in the National Conversation. Hence, announcing that we want to increase our population to 6.9 million can look insensitive at a time like this.
There seems to be a dichotomy between the Government ramming through these long-term policies and citizens asking for an immediate fix to these issues. Yet, we cannot overlook the long-term risks ahead. With an ageing population, we cannot afford not to have labour mobility. Countries who face an ageing population who do not embrace labour mobility risk long-term deflation and low job prospects.
Many in the House are aware that Japan, an economic power house in the 1980s, has not seen any real recovery since 1990. Japan has lost a record number of jobs in manufacturing. Does Singapore want to follow in the path of Japan? Is long-term deflation the answer to short-term inflation? I would argue no. Is using an appreciating Sing dollar to tackle inflation effective? I would argue no, too. Instead, we should focus on fiscal policies like increasing the supply of housing, transport and commercial space in order to reduce the cost-driven inflation that we all now suffer.
If the Government's vision for 2030 can indeed cater for 6.9 million population, then whether or not we reach that level, at least we know we have built the infrastructure and capacity in the long term so we do not repeat the same mistakes again. At least, we would not cause another painful round of inflation that hurts many Singaporeans, particularly the lower-income ones.
Secondly, an international perspective. Singapore is an open economy. Our success is built on open trade flows with the world. We are ranked competitively because our transparent framework, our educated workforce, our political stability and our racial harmony. This stability is important! If we allow politics or inflation to cause social divide, or the rest of the world starts to perceive us as unstable, we can expect capital and businesses to move out. If we put up more barriers to entry in our labour market, we will become more competitive at a time when other countries are competing for the same pool of talent.
China also needs a younger population. With their one-child policy, their young population of 15- to 24-year-olds will drop by 27% in 2025. This means wages in China will continue to rise exponentially, so narrowing the income gap between them and us. So, rather than worrying about foreigners who want to
Page: 57
come here to take our jobs, should we not be worrying about other countries offering better opportunities to our top talent? Rather than worry about immigration, should we not be worrying about migration? Migration of our young talent. Migration of our future employers.
Yesterday's Business Times suggested that several companies were shifting their operations out as Singapore becomes too expensive. According to the SBF National Business Survey of 1,006 companies, 14% are contemplating moving out. For manufacturing, the figure is higher at 28%. Even if we shift the lower to mid-end operations out, with these shifts, Singaporeans will lose out in the long term as the middle to top management jobs tend to be manned by Singaporeans.
Let us talk about fertility. Firstly, I question if baby bonuses are effective. Secondly, I question if raising the TFR, will make much difference to the Singapore resident population.
Let us talk about baby bonuses. Tax rebates and bonuses have not worked in the past 20 years. Do we really think it will work now? Rather, is it insufficient housing, insufficient affordable child care, and too much stress in our education system that is causing a drop in our TFR? AWARE did a study in 2004, where they concluded that it was the quality of life, adequate support structures, including flexi-work, gender equality and a less pressurised education system, that will help the TFR. As for housing, studies have shown a strong correlation between housing prices and fertility (lagging about two years) and a very weak correlation between baby bonuses and fertility. There is also evidence that crowded cities, with high levels of stress, lead to lower TFRs.
Next, I want to raise a more fundamental question, which is whether a rise in TFR, even to 1.85, will make a sufficient difference. The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) did a study in 2011. Here, it compared a TFR of 1.24 versus 1.85, with no net migration. In 2030, the difference in the Singapore citizen population, or the Singapore Core as we call it, was just 3%. However, if we allowed net migration, there would be a more important effect in increasing our overall population numbers, especially for the young and working age group. Hence, we need to ask the question of how much effort do we need to throw behind raising the TFR and, ultimately, will it be that effective? Or should we be looking at better integration of the new migrants?
So, this brings me to my last point, which is on integration. Singaporeans may not want too many foreigners in our midst. But if these foreigners behave
Page: 58
less like foreigners and more like Singaporeans, will this mindset change? After all, it is said that National Service (NS) is the great leveller for male immigrants. For the immigrants who do not have to serve NS, can we offer them an alternative like volunteering in local community services or registered VWOs? Our current integration programme consists of a tour, a session with grassroots leaders, an online tutorial and quiz and a citizenship ceremony. Can we not add on local community service programmes to better ingrain them to our local communities so that they, too, can serve our nation and become more \"Singaporean\"?
Finally, improving the pitch, focus and sequencing of the White Paper. The Population White Paper is a commendable and bold effort from the Government. It outlines the challenges of an ageing population, the number of foreigners needed to top up the shortfall, as well as the level of growth needed to generate meaningful jobs for Singaporeans. Unfortunately, the media and social networks focused on the headline 6.9 million figure and not many Singaporeans ended up appreciating the full extent of these challenges that we face in the long term.
So, whilst the White Paper offered a balanced view, its delivery process could have been better thought out. Had the Government focused first on the improvement in public infrastructure and the expansion in the capacity, before announcing the headline figure or population projection, we may have had a better outcome. In other words, the sequencing could have been better. And its focus and pitch should have been geared more towards what we are capable or will be capable of handling in 2030. A different pitch and focus could have made a big difference in how Singaporeans react to this White Paper and probably would have caused less angst and frustration.
Finally, for the benefit of us Members of Parliament, for a Paper of such strategic long-term importance, surely we deserve more than just six days to review it? It is not easy to discuss a 20-year vision over a few days!
In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, whether this White Paper is about a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore or a Dynamic Population for a sustainable Singapore, let us not allow this to fragment the country and let us get everyone to understand and unite behind finding some long-term solutions to the many challenges that our country now faces.
Page: 59
Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion. This Population White Paper has laid down a strategic roadmap for Singapore and Singaporeans for the next 18 years, that is, from 2013 to 2030. Its desired outcomes should be to make Singapore a more attractive place for business investments so that more good jobs will be available for Singaporeans and, in the process, enhance the quality of life of Singaporeans.
Madam, although the White Paper has good intentions to inspire Singaporeans to build a better Singapore together, many Singaporeans have expressed concerns and discomfort. There are three key areas of concerns raised by many Singaporeans, namely: first, 6.9 million population which will cause overcrowding problems; second, 2.5 million foreign workers and 600,000 Permanent Residents which will result in competition for jobs and social cohesion problems; and, third, 700,000 more homes to be built on our limited land which will result in a highly dense living environment.
Madam, all these are real and practical problems faced by Singaporeans. These challenges will affect the quality of jobs, quality of living environment and quality of life.
Madam, the White Paper provides broad framework on the key initiatives of the Government to cope with the challenges of our population growth. There are many figures and projections on the population trends, and programmes by various Ministries to support the growth. But the key discussion among Singaporeans is the 6.9 million population by 2030.
Many Singaporeans do not understand the need to have this 6.9 million population size, and the consequences of a shrinking workforce and ageing population. This is understandable as many Singaporeans are presently facing problems of congestion and overcrowding in our transport system, high COE and property prices, and high cost of living.
If the Government does not take immediate measures to resolve these problems, it is difficult to convince Singaporeans that we need a 6.9 million population by 2030.
Addressing short-term problems. Madam, instead of planning for 2030, which is basically an 18-year plan, I would propose to the Government to phase out the plan into three stages: first, a three-year plan to address the present problems faced by Singaporeans, that is from 2013 to 2015; second, a five-year plan to address the medium term challenges of an ageing population and
Page: 60
shrinking workforce; and third, a further 10-year plan to have a 6.9 million population to sustain a dynamic economy.
In addition, it is important to coordinate and synchronise all the Master plans put forward by the various Ministries so that they can prioritise their development works and programmes to address both short-term and long-term challenges.
To overcome the present problems faced by commuters and drivers, I would urge the Government to expedite the implementation of our land transport system. For instance, instead of waiting for five years to buy the 800 new buses under the Bus Service Enhancement Programme, the Ministry should consider short-term quick-fix solutions, such as leasing buses from private bus operators to supplement public buses during peak hours or granting more direct express routes to private bus operators, to relieve commuter load.
We should fast track many construction works at our roads and expressways so as to reduce traffic disruptions and congestions. Road widening and flyover projects should be expedited to reduce bottlenecks and facilitate traffic flow.
Madam, for instance, the Members of Parliament of Bukit Panjang town have requested for road connection from Bukit Panjang town to KJE for three years to ease the traffic congestion in our town. To date, LTA is still studying the request. I hope that LTA can work faster to build this road connection as soon as possible for Bukit Panjang residents.
As for HDB housing, we used to build about 30,000 to 35,000 flats a year in the past. The local construction industry does have the capacities and capabilities to build more flats faster to meet the housing needs of Singaporeans.
One way to speed up the construction of HDB flats is to outsource the design and project management of public housing to the private sector. We can adopt more standardised and precast designs, such as The Pinnacle @ Duxton, to shorten the design and construction duration of BTO flats.
In this way, we can provide more new flats at a faster rate for Singaporeans who are first timers, upgraders or downgraders. If 30,000 new flats were built per year over the next three years, the resale HDB and private property prices will stabilise, thus making both public and private housing more affordable to
Page: 61
Singaporeans.
Madam, there is a need also to change our housing policies to restrict foreign ownership of residential housing in Singapore, especially for foreigners or companies owning more than one residential properties in Singapore.
A high quality living environment. Madam, the term \"High Quality Living Environment\" is not clearly defined in the White Paper. Thus, it is difficult for Singaporeans to understand or to visualise their future living environment with a 6.9 million population. While I support the HDB's development policies to bring families together, I am concerned about having too many infill developments in existing housing estates. These developments are taking up \"green lungs\" and social interaction spaces in the community.
Although infill developments can expedite the construction of housing, we should consider optimising land use through intensification, such as increasing the plot ratio of existing residential buildings.
Madam, I declare my interest as a subsidiary proprietor of a strata title development. The amendment of the Land Titles (Strata) Act has incentivised many residential buildings to go for enbloc to intensify land use. The Government should consider reviewing the plot ratios of more existing buildings to further encourage redevelopment so as to provide more private housing to meet the aspirations of Singaporeans, especially our future PMETs.
While land intensification will provide more housing units, I do hope that developers will not build \"shoe box\" units which will reduce the quality of living for families. Madam, Singapore must not follow the footsteps of Hong Kong, which is also known as a \"Yam Cha\" city. Apartments in Hong Kong are so small that Hongkongers can hardly have any family gatherings at home. Therefore, most of the time, they spend their time outside their homes to \"Yam Cha\" or drink tea. This should not be the type of high-quality living environment we are planning for.
Madam, I am concerned about the proposal to reclaim land for future development. Reclamation is costly and causes much environment distortion and damage. Besides, we do face difficulty to purchase reclamation sand. Thus, I do not think it is prudent to use public funds to reclaim land. We should instead explore more innovative ways to intensify existing developments and retain our green spaces in the built environment.
Page: 62
Madam, I fully support the construction of the 360-kilometre park connector and more parks to enhance the quality of our living environment. But it has taken too long to implement the park connectors due to different land ownership problems. I would urge the Government to consider developing 2.5-kilometre stretches of park connectors near housing estates. These can be built more easily and faster instead of coordinating among different Government agencies and landowners to implement a 150-kilometre round island route park connector.
Madam, to many Singaporeans, a 2.5-kilometre park connector near home is better than a 150 \tkilometre square park connector round the island. Many Singaporeans, especially our elderly, only need to walk two rounds of 2.5 \tkilometre to have a daily five-kilometre brisk walk to keep fit. Thus, I hope that more 2.5-kilometre park connectors can be built to serve our residents over the next three years.
Strengthening social cohesion. Madam, it will be very challenging to integrate and bond a population of 6.9 million comprising old citizens, new citizens, permanent residents and foreign workers. A diverse population will require more efforts of all stakeholders to build a strong Singapore community.
Madam, many new citizens chose Singapore as their home for various reasons. These include political stability and good governance, good job prospects, safe and good living environment, and better prospects for their children. Therefore, we should continue to safeguard these attributes to build a strong Singapore community.
I would urge Singaporeans to be more open-hearted and embrace our new citizens as fellow countrymen to strengthen social cohesion. We should also gracefully accept PRs and foreign workers who are making contributions to our country. Together, the 6.9 million people in 2030 can live harmoniously and happily in our Global City Singapore.
The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr S Iswaran): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The Motion for amendment standing in the name of the Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa serves three purposes.
It reinforces the focus on Singaporeans who are at the core of this White Paper, for whom we want opportunities for a sustainable population and a dynamic Singapore. It highlights Singaporeans' legitimate concerns over infrastructure developments, especially in the new towns, and the need to
Page: 63
ensure that the benefits of growth flow to all Singaporeans. It also recognises the dynamic nature of the environment that we have, and it calls for a review of this long-term road map, and the medium term in response to the changing needs of Singaporeans, and our evolving circumstances. For all these reasons, I rise and support the Motion.
Madam, it would be an understatement to say that this debate is important. How we deal with this complex issue will profoundly affect our lives, and that of our children. The fact of the matter is – there are no easy solutions, and anyone who offers one should be challenged. We have to make some difficult choices, and these are choices in truth we would rather not have to make. And that is why the debate in this House, as well as among Singaporeans, has been passionate and intense. We have heard many well considered views, many of which were deeply felt.
But it is precisely because the stakes are so high, and the passions seem to be running even higher at times, that it is incumbent upon us to be calm and deliberate in considering what is in the best interest of our people and our country.
We must establish the facts, clearly understand our fundamental challenges, and seek to build consensus on a sensible way forward. Above all, we must be honest with Singaporeans on what these choices and trade-offs mean for all of us.
That is what the Government has done in this White Paper. We have sought to strike a balance between the forces that are pulling us in different directions – the need to create opportunities for Singaporeans, now and in the future; the fundamental demographic challenges that we face; and our domestic resource constraints. It proposes a middle path that reconciles these challenges and, in our opinion, best secures options for our future.
We seem to have agreement on many points – seemingly even with Members of the Opposition although they claim that column is entirely a Workers' Party proposition. In fact, it is something that all of us subscribe to and the Government has been working at.
Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all Singaporeans, whose needs, aspirations and concerns should be at the heart of this endeavour. And we all agree that we must preserve and strengthen the core of Singaporeans, as the very basis of our identity. And we must create more and diverse job
Page: 64
opportunities for all Singaporeans and enable more women and the elderly, especially, to join the workforce, if they so desire. We agree that productivity must be the core driver of our future growth, and that we must help our businesses make this transformation. And that we must not be over-reliant on foreign manpower. So, ultimately, we all agree that our economy must change course. It cannot be Business as Usual.
But, Mdm Speaker, there is a serious difference between what the Workers' Party proposes and what the Government recommends in the White Paper. That difference lies in how we propose to make this transition and what impact it will have on Singaporeans and our businesses.
The Workers' Party has presented an extreme scenario as a plausible choice for Singaporeans. It proposes to immediately stop any increase in foreign workforce until 2020, capping it at current levels, and it further proposes that we should rely exclusively on increasing our resident workforce by 1%. What does that actually mean?
In other words, the Workers' Party believes that for the rest of this decade, the only source of additional manpower for a new business in Singapore, or one that wants to expand, should be from any natural increase in the resident population, increasing the participation rate of older workers and women, and a limited number of citizenships awarded to the foreign spouses of Singaporeans – and, of course, if foreign workers are freed up elsewhere in the economy because some of the businesses close down or contract. According to their proposal, we would not even have one more foreign domestic worker in Singapore for the rest of this decade, and certainly no additional workers, especially for the construction sector, which is, in fact, critical to our infrastructure plans.
This proposal is essentially the extreme \"freeze\" scenario painted by Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his opening speech.
Ms Sylvia Lim characterised the trade-off as sacrificing 0.5% GDP growth – the Government's estimates, for one million less in our population – leading to increased quality of life and of wages.
I really wish it were that simple. It is a clever sound bite, but it does not tell Singaporeans the real consequences of such an extreme and risky proposal. The Government, as well as many Singaporeans, are deeply concerned by the enormous burden the Workers' Party's proposal will impose on Singaporeans,
Page: 65
our workers and our businesses. Let me explain.
Today, our workers and businesses are already going through a difficult restructuring process as they feel the effects of our tightening manpower policies. Our businesses and the various business associations – SBF, Chambers, ASME – are feeling the pain. They cannot find enough workers and have appealed to us to ease our manpower policies. Many have talked quite openly about relocating their businesses out of Singapore.
All this tightening also affects our workers. More than 1.3 million Singaporeans work in 160,000 SMEs. Many of them are concerned for their job security. They know that if the business they work in cannot keep up and make the necessary changes, it will have to close. And meanwhile, they also need to upgrade their skills as part of the productivity drive. That is why we are also investing so heavily in our workers, through retraining, so that they remain employable
Notwithstanding these widespread concerns of workers and businesses, the Government has been steadfast in tightening our manpower policies. We are resolute that our economy and businesses must restructure to raise our productivity. We are very clear about that. But we want to give our businesses time to adjust because, as Mr Inderjit Singh said, SMEs need time to restructure. We are also supporting our companies through this difficult transition, and easing their burden, through various measures. To date, about 5,700 companies have benefitted from programmes under the National Productivity Fund (NPF). Nearly $1 billion – $950 million to be precise – has been set aside just to support a wide range of productivity programmes. We can and we will do more.
The Workers' Party's proposal – with its immediate cessation of any additional foreign manpower – is drastic and inherently very risky. It will exacerbate uncertainty in the economic environment and accelerate business closures and the offshoring of activities. Singaporeans will lose their jobs. And instead of productivity-led growth, it could easily tip our economy into a downward spiral. This abrupt move will derail our efforts to boost productivity and restructure the economy.
In fact, at last year's Budget debate, Mr Low Thia Khiang warned us of this very same risk and I listened to him very carefully then – when he urged \"the Government (needs) to be cautious in the restructuring process\", and I further quote, \"it will be a long and arduous journey to restructure the economy and increase productivity\". He was – I quote again – also \"worried that many small
Page: 66
businessmen will eventually become unemployed\". I think these were very fair observations and I am, therefore, surprised by this extreme and risky approach that is being proposed by the Workers' Party.
Such a precipitous move would also send completely the wrong signal to the business and investor community, be it local or international. We would be breaking faith with companies who are already invested here and are in the process of ramping up their operations. It will damage our reputation and severely impair our efforts to attract new and different businesses which can offer precisely the kind of diverse job that better educated Singaporeans seek. In short, the Workers' Party proposal will have a chilling effect on our economy. It is a freeze scenario under which we might well contain the number of foreign workers – the Workers' Party is taking an extreme risk with the livelihood of Singaporeans and the survival of our businesses.
Mdm Speaker, in contrast, the Government is advocating a measured and balanced approach to bring about this transformation in our economy. We are not fixated on growth, as some have alleged. Neither do we take for granted, as Ms Jessica Tan has counselled. We seek quality growth so as to create the best possible opportunities for Singaporeans.
The economic aspects of this White Paper are a sharp and significant departure from the past. It will by no means be business as usual. In manpower – we are halving the growth rate to 1% to 2% in this decade, and a further reduction to 1% in the next decade, compared to 3.3% per year in the last 30 years. In GDP growth – we are hoping for 3% to 5% per year this decade, but 3% to 4% is more likely. And this is in contrast to 8% per year we have enjoyed since Independence and 5.6% in the last decade. And this will drop even further to 2% to 3% from 2020 to 2030. It is akin to a transition from the bustling economic environment of China/Shanghai to the more developed economy pace of countries like, perhaps, the US. Our productivity projections of 2% to 3% in this decade and 1% to 2% in the next, are also a stretch when we consider our historical experience, 3.1% from1990 to 2000, 1.8% in the last decade, and that is also the case when we compared it with other developed countries. But we believe that we can achieve this if we make a concerted effort.
Does this sound like a government that is continuing at the same speed? Mr Low has accused us as continuing to drive at the same speed. Let me say this categorically. We are slowing down; we are stepping on the brake so that we can achieve a smooth landing. But what the Workers' Party is proposing is \"to jam-brake\" and put our economy in a tailspin. And our businesses and workers risk a \"hard landing\". Even under the Government's proposal, this
Page: 67
adjustment is not easy. It will affect all of us. Businesses still have to restructure. Workers will have to upgrade their skills. And the economy will have to find a new equilibrium. And this will take time and effort. But this approach will give our businesses and workers more time to adjust, and a fighting chance to survive this transition, with assistance from the Government, which many Members have advocated.
Even more importantly, this level of growth, though lower than in the past, will help us maintain a certain vibrancy in our economy. And many have asked, why do we need this? But without that vibrancy, we cannot attract the new activities or companies that can create the types of jobs that better educated and qualified Singaporeans aspire for. To draw to our shores, new growth or sunrise clusters that can provide those jobs of the future so that our whole economy can make this transition, we need that vibrance. Without that level of growth, those jobs just would not come.
There are certainly other ways beyond domestic or GDP growth that we can use to create opportunities for Singaporeans outside of Singapore. And we are doing that. Our agencies, such as IE Singapore, are working with businesses to expand their external wing, and create opportunities beyond our shores. But we still need a home-based economy that is robust. Because if the mothership is not strong, and the satellites get stronger, we risk getting hollowed out.
We have much going in our favour that we can leverage on. We are in the heart of a growing Asia where opportunities abound. MNCs and global businesses are shifting their centre of gravity to Asia and, today, Singapore is a strong candidate as a location for their core operations and functions. Unprecedented rates of urbanisation in Asia are creating the demand for innovative urban and infrastructure solutions. The rise of the Asian consumer and the growth in the size and disposable income of the Asian middle class create demand for high-quality products and services.
We are well-placed to capture these opportunities because they play to our strengths. Urban solutions and city planning are core capabilities that we have built up over the years in the public and private sectors. As a leading services hub, the growth of Asia will have significant spillover benefits for our sectors like trading, logistics, information, communication and media (ICM), financial services and tourism. We have the capability to host complex manufacturing processes, especially in areas where know-how and intellectual property are crucial. We are also a preferred location for manufacturing-related services, such as headquarters activities, R&D, Intellectual Property (IP) management and product lifecycle management. Most importantly, we have a growing pool of
Page: 68
skilled and talented Singaporeans who are in high demand. With different pathways to success, we will have a diverse core of Singaporeans with different aptitudes, capabilities and interests, including 400,000 more PMET-level Singaporeans, in the workforce by 2030.
These trends and our unique strengths and positioning have allowed us to create a diversity of jobs. For instance, the jobs that EDB was able to create in 2012 alone reflect the diversity of opportunities that we are trying to create and have been able to. They include, for example, Unilever – a global leader in consumer products, which offers career opportunities in regional and global digital marketing. Another example is Leo Burnett – a world-class advertising agency, but it has created a specific opportunity in Singapore in terms of generating Asia-centric consumer insights and analytics, which will inform the decisions of businesses, whether they are in the consumer products or other service sectors. Givaudan – a Swiss manufacturer of fragrances and the largest flavouring company in the world – has created opportunities in Singapore for perfume research and development, such as discovering new ingredients.
We are creating attractive opportunities at all levels, including the non-PMET levels. For example, in the aerospace industry, our ITE graduates are highly sought after by companies, such as Singapore Aero Engine Service (SAESL), Rolls-Royce and UTC. These graduates are the backbone of their Aircraft Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) operations and they enjoy good career progression.
Some of our young, at an entirely different end of the spectrum, may aspire to be chefs in our vibrant culinary landscape. With our tourism strategy, we have attracted many Michelin-starred chefs to open up restaurants on our shores. There are many opportunities for apprenticeship and career advancement for our aspiring chefs and, indeed, when you go to these restaurants or any other restaurant, you will meet many of them. And they have a certain glow in their eye.
The Government will prepare every Singaporean to reach their full potential to stand them in good stead to fill these jobs that we are creating. It is painstaking work and we are doing this sector by sector to cater to diverse needs. I want to give you a couple of examples.
EDB will be introducing MBA scholarships over five years under the \"Global-Asia Management Programme\". Why? It is to groom Singaporeans into
Page: 69
leadership positions in different industries to ride on Asia's growth.
When we bring in global trading companies, we also work with local Universities to ensure that the right courses are made available to Singaporeans. In this context, IE Singapore has worked with SMU and SUTD to develop programmes to build up the trading talent pool amongst our undergraduates.
As part of the Precision Engineering (PE) productivity roadmap, a new PE Vocational CET (PEVC) initiative was started to provide skills-based continuous education and a certification framework for PE craftsmen. I highlight this to demonstrate that it is not just that we are trying to create these jobs. We are trying to help, through various programmes, our Singaporeans to secure those jobs. The Government will also help train Singaporeans so that we can take on, either from the very beginning or over time, more of the jobs that are being created in promising new sectors.
The pharmaceuticals and biological products industry is one example that has seen such localisation. Starting from a very low base, almost zero base, the local PME share of total employment has grown significantly by about 14 percentage points in the last 10 years, reaching around a third of total employment in this industry in 2010. There has been a decline in the Employment Pass (EP) holders' share of total employment in the industry over the same period and we expect further migration in this direction.
Having created such opportunities, we also want to make sure that Singaporeans have a fair chance of getting them, that we are treated fairly.\tMy colleague, the Acting Minister for Manpower, will address these concerns.
But even as we chart this course to seize opportunities, we must remember that staying open as an economy is fundamental to our continued success. As a small country, we survive by doing business with the rest of the world. We compete against other major cities and developed countries. We do so and succeed by keeping our economy open, so that Singaporeans, working with international talent, can compete globally.
We also cannot ask other countries to open their markets for Singaporeans and our firms while we close ours off to theirs. These are major considerations for leading organisations like McKinsey, Boston Consulting or Shell when they decide where to locate their global or even Asian headquarters. We must remain open and connected, for trade and talent flows, or risk getting left
Page: 70
behind. Bottomline – Singapore cannot afford to just look inwards.
Especially because we sit in the heart of Asia, we must be alive to the rising competition. We have neighbours who are teeming with energy and activity, growing rapidly and becoming more competitive. Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and India have median ages of 25 to 38, significantly lower than ours.
The competition is real and it comes from all quarters. At a recent dialogue, senior executives from Applied Materials, which is the world's largest semiconductor equipment company, shared with me that just over the last four years, the wage difference between their Singapore manufacturing operations and other advanced locations, including Austin, Texas, has narrowed significantly because of wage increases here. In the past, when making investment decisions, companies asked, \"Why not Singapore?\" We had a certain mind share. As our circumstances are changing, we are now beginning to ask, \"Why Singapore?\" If we are not careful and make abrupt or precipitous policy moves, companies will soon say \"Not Singapore.\" And if too many companies start saying \"Not Singapore\", we will not be able to deliver the opportunities that Singaporeans want and we will lose them to greener pastures.
Having said that, Mdm Speaker, I am confident that our economic agencies can work together and convince many, many companies to say, \"Yes Singapore\", provided we remain adaptable to the global economy, remain open, and to remain united in our purpose and spirit. In this, everyone needs to play a part.
We have a bright future to look forward to. It may be lower growth compared to the past, but it is quality growth that can generate a myriad of good opportunities for Singaporeans. There will be exciting new industries and jobs. To achieve that, we need our economy to have a solid core of Singaporeans with a judicious complement of talent from abroad, as envisaged in the White Paper. And I would urge all parties to rise above differences on specifics to look at the big picture and play their part.
I have outlined what the Government is doing and the commitment to do more. For businesses, it is important they recognise the importance of developing a Singapore core, and build up the capabilities of Singaporean workers. One SME I visited recently is Manufacturing Integration Technology (MIT), a home-grown company in the semiconductor industry. It has shown that it is possible to build up, over time, a highly capable workforce made up of more
Page: 71
than 80% locals in the manufacturing sector by seizing new growth opportunities and harnessing technology and innovation. We must persevere and invest in productivity.
I believe Singaporeans also have good reasons to be excited. We have a promising future. And I would say certainly our children are also looking forward to that future with great expectation and excitement. Recently, at a dialogue with residents in Jurong Central, I met a young Secondary school student, Khoo Xue Ni, a 15-year-old Secondary 4 student at Hua Yi Secondary School. She stays in a 4-room flat in Jurong West with her parents and two younger sisters. And she asked me whether Singapore will continue to remain competitive and vibrant. They were rather mature questions for her age but she was very compelling. She said she worries about the future. But even as she does that, because she sees the other countries are catching up, she also hopes that there will be exciting jobs for young Singaporeans like her. She wants to be a forensic pathologist but, clearly, her choices are evolving. Her simple question, and the aspirations that she has, brought home to me most vividly what this is all about. We want to be able to tell Xue Ni and other Singaporeans like her, and we want to be able to look them in the eye and say, \"Yes, the world is your oyster, but Singapore, too, will have exciting opportunities for you to realise your dreams, and that we are doing everything we can to make it happen.\" And we want to reassure her parents and many other parents like hers that, indeed, we will create the opportunities for their children so that they will have reason and purpose and continue to be able to make Singapore their home.
We can look forward to a good quality of life. Our economy will be dynamic and abuzz with activity. Singapore will continue to be an energetic and exciting node in our region, just like other leading cities. Ours will be a very liveable city that we can call home, where we work, live and play.
That is the vision that the Singapore Government is asking Singaporeans to support: a global and competitive economy, so that Singaporeans with different aspirations can have diverse and exciting opportunities to realise their dreams, to create their own futures, and to live in a vibrant and liveable city that we call \"home\". Madam, I support the motion, and let us work together to make it happen.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Low.
Page: 72
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I would like to clarify what the Minister said when he referred to the Workers' Party's proposal.
First of all, I would like to thank the Minister for reminding this House of my concern which I had expressed in a past debate here. I would like to assure this House and Singaporeans that the Workers' Party's proposal has taken in all the concerns that I expressed in this House and I was very careful that we do not want to rock the economy. The proposal is a very careful, considered, calibrated approach. We are looking at a GDP growth of 2.5% to 3.5%. It is not an extreme model, as what the Minister has suggested. And remember we still have the current workforce – foreign workers and all that. We are not saying, \"Let's get rid of all the foreign workers.\" We are not saying that. If we are saying that, then it is fair that the Minister said we are being extreme. With the current workforce that we have, to grow our resident workforce, we probably could still view the workforce we need for expansion. And if the foreign workers' work permits or their contracts have expired and they go back, we can still get back the same number, but we keep the total size of the population and the workforce.
The Minister was concerned. I understand the businesses are complaining. I also receive the same complaint saying, \"We cannot get work permit approval.\" And this is not a new problem. It has been a problem that businesses have a big appetite for cheap foreign labour. And the consequence of that is that Singaporean workers' wages are not going up because of the foreign labour. Do we want to continue with that? Do we want to say, \"Look, yes, we need more foreign labour because the businesses are asking for it.\"
And I know, and I can understand the Government is facing tremendous pressure from big business MNCs and also the concern whether we will miss the boat. But I recall reading somewhere that during the early days of Independence, there was a company that came to Singapore to invest and wanted to put their tank, diesel tank or whatever tank, on Singapore soil and threatened that if they could not, they would withdraw. Then Dr Goh Keng Swee said, \"Stand firm on that.\"
I think we need the PAP leaders to stand firm to the MNCs and say, \"Look, this is our way and we think we should do that for the betterment of Singapore.\" Because if you do not do that, then what is the consequence? What is the trade-off? We will reach 6.9 million, and then come 2030, what? You still need more foreign labour in order to continue to grow the economy to provide good quality of life for Singaporeans. Same argument. Then the roadmap? Ten million in
Page: 73
2050?
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, you have to seek your clarification and not enter into a debate, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, Madam. Now, I refer to another statement that the Minister made. He said that the companies will be asking, if we are going down the road, \"Why Singapore?\" and \"Not Singapore.\" But I want to caution the Government that, yes, the company may ask you, \"Why Singapore?\", because this is your labour policy and \"Why should we invest here? Why should we come here?\" But how about Singaporeans? Will you not worry that, one day, Singaporeans may ask you the same question: \"Why should I stay here? Why should I continue to be in Singapore?\"
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low, please make your clarification. You are making speeches.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, Madam, the last clarification. The Minister talked about perseverance in productivity. I do agree. But I also urge the Government to persevere in investing in our own population. Increase our TFR. Otherwise, one day, there will be a Singapore without Singaporeans.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, in my speech earlier, I made the point about the fear for the workers in terms of over-tightening of the labour force. If I may have your permission to clarify the point in my speech earlier, Mdm Speaker?
Mdm Speaker: Yes.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Mdm Speaker, I spent quite a few years with the EDB. In the EDB, we had to go round the world to attract investments. I can speak from my experience that some of the challenges we face are these. Take, for example, the case of the electronics sector. For a long time, Singapore was a capital for disk drives. We did very well. In fact, we had something like 10,000 or 20,000 workers working in the disk drive sector. But way before the disk drive sector went into consolidation, the EDB had to look ahead. If we did not look ahead, eventually by the time the disk drive sector exited from Singapore, then we would not have had new investments continue to flow in.
Page: 74
At that point in time, EDB had to look ahead. The next stage of developments for the electronics sector was wafer fabrication. When we went into wafer fabrication investment, investments of the wafer fabrication companies were well sought after in the world. Each investment was worth about US$1 billion. However, each project required 1,000 persons to operate the plant – 500 engineers or PMEs; 500 are operators.
At that point in time, I still remember very clearly, that the first significant project we were competing with Korea for, actually decided to go to Malaysia. Finally, we went to the Japanese companies and tried to bring a Japanese project to Singapore. The Japanese management basically asked a very simple question. They said, \"Look, we have the money to put in the investment. We know Singapore has committed to provide the land, water, and so on. But they said, \"Look, the most important factor is manpower because once you go to higher value-added, knowledge-based economy, it is all about manpower.\" At the same time, they also reminded us that it is not possible to operate the new state-of-the-art wafer fabrication plant with 100% PMEs because you need 50% who are the operators.
In other words, the investor was asking the EDB, \"Are you able to promise us a total package? Which means I must be able to find the 1,000 engineers, technicians and production operators. Otherwise, I cannot operate the plant.\" We said, \"Sure, we are prepared to do so.\" But we had a problem because, given the tight labour market in Singapore, 80% of the engineers, the PMEs are Singaporeans. Twenty percent, we told them, \"Fine. If you cannot find enough engineers in Singapore, you can take 20% from other countries, but 80% are Singaporeans.\" But for operators, it was the other way round because we just could not find enough operators for them. In the case of operators, actually, it was more than half were foreign operators and less than half were Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, my point here is this. If we had insisted to this wafer fabrication company and said, \"Look, you can come to Singapore, bring —
Mdm Speaker: Mr Lim, you have to make a clarification, not a speech, please.
Mr Lim Swee Say: Yes. I am trying to clarify this point that if we had told the investor, the wafer fabrication company, \"You can only hire the operators and wait until the disk drive companies \"close shop\", when they will release the manpower, the operators, then you hire these operators,\" because we have a
Page: 75
policy of zero net increase in foreign workers.
Mdm Speaker, if this was the case, the projects would not have come to Singapore. My point here is that as a Labour Movement, we are very concerned that, yes, we want restructuring. But with restructuring, it cannot be like a restructuring cliff-jump. Today from disk drive to wafer fabrication tomorrow, overnight. It would not happen. You have to go through a process of transition. Therefore, I think it is an important point that I wish to clarify.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Iswaran, your clarification, or explanation to clarification, please.
Mr S Iswaran: Thank you, Madam. I want to thank the Member for his expansive clarification. To me, it says that he understands the gravity of the situation, and he is trying to explain a quite different point of view. I want to first assure him that this Government has not in any way lost its resolve to make tough decisions. In fact, if you look at our track record, we do it and we do not shirk away from it.
Why are we being more cautious this time? We are not talking about one diesel tank. We are talking about millions of jobs, and hundreds of thousands of companies. I think it warrants caution and a certain level of measure in the way we do things. You stated that your GDP projections are not extreme. Indeed, I agree with you. In fact, your GDP projections are not the issue. That is arithmetic. What is extreme is your proposal as a policy on foreign manpower addition to this economy for this decade. That is what is extreme. That is what is going to cause the kind of issues I talked about, and that is what is going to cause the wrong signals to go out and potentially cause irreparable damage to our reputation, and our ability to then turn on the tap in the next decade, as the Workers' Party thinks we can. That is the crux of the issue.
I agree with the Member that we are not just accountable to companies. We are also accountable to Singaporeans. I agree with that. In fact, that is what the whole purpose of this whole endeavour is about. Because if we arrive at some point in the future with a low population number but bereft of opportunities, I think we would equally be asked, \"Why didn't you do something about it when you could?\"
Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm.
Page: 76
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 3.51 pm until 4.10 pm.
Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
A SUSTAINABLE POPULATION FOR A DYNAMIC SINGAPORE
[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to join this debate. Let me first declare my interests. Firstly, as a Singaporean who hopes to still be alive in 2030 and belong to a Singapore that everyone feels proud of; and, secondly, as a young husband who hopes that my children will eventually live in a future Singapore which is even better than it is today.
The White Paper takes the bold move to crystal ball gaze into the future. Perhaps, it is ahead of its time; perhaps it is not even the best of times. We have yet to conclude Our Singapore Conversation, and some young Singaporeans I spoke to recently said they felt let down despite their initial enthusiasm, because it seemed to them that the White Paper ignores the same frustrations and aspirations they have shared for a future Singapore.
But we cannot wind back the clock. We have to deal with the important job at hand, and make things work. There are three areas I would like to focus on today: our present, our people and our future.
The basis of the White Paper is driven by many current pressures, one of which is our declining TFR. The enhancements to the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package seem to be a small step in the right direction. Credit must be given where it is due. The young couples I have interacted with recently generally applaud the M&P Package. In particular, the enhanced package has gone one step further in providing greater safeguards to working pregnant women, in addition to monetary and housing incentives. The emphasis on a paternal role in parenting recognises the equal burden that each parent should bear.
Page: 77
As a member of the Labour Movement, I am deeply encouraged by the introduction of the \"Enhanced Maternity Protection for Pregnant Employees\" measure. Although the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices or TAFEP has taken great strides in educating employers to provide fair employment, this discriminatory problem with pregnant employees remains.
I believe that this measure sends out a strong and clear deterrent message to errant employers against denying their employees their rightful maternity benefits, at the same time, providing greater peace of mind to married couples hoping to start a family without the fear for their livelihoods.
But can we also not do more? The NTUC suggested boldly for longer maternity leave and more flexible work arrangements. As the hon Member Mr Patrick Tay suggested on Tuesday, flexi-work should be regarded as the norm rather than the exception.
All combined, the M&P Package is a generous one, but I wonder if it is enough of a present for our present generation. It remains to be seen how this will impact TFR. My fear is that we may overly monetise our children, that again they are seen through the lens of digits, that each person has a price. It is certainly not the intention, but, unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult for people to think otherwise, which is why the idea of a Singapore Core is an important one to define.
Mdm Speaker, if you would indulge me, I will use this apple to illustrate the point. Imagine, if you will, Singapore as a bright shining apple, the proverbial little red dot.
When Raffles first arrived in Singapore in 1819, there were only about 150 people on our tiny island. Just about 10 years later, the first 2,000 Chinese coolies arrived in the first wave to help kick-start development of our island. Indian migrants also started arriving at about the same time. These, our forefathers, helped a small bud to flower and strengthen that stalk which now supports the core of our fruit.
As our country developed, so extended our core population, from our local Malay community added Chinese migrants and Indian settlers. Some came from even further afield: Armenians, Persians, Europeans, Indonesians, amongst others. The lustre of the young apple attracted diverse talents and people to our shores to contribute towards growth.
Page: 78
This formed the solid core around which we grew; our people's collective memories and efforts sweetening the fruit of our labours. Around this, our initial identity formed; our urge for nationhood, spurred by the bloodshed of war, led us to unexpected independence. But we persevered. Almost 50 years since, we have come far.
Should not it, therefore, mean an apple that is sweet and ripe? No, because our stalk has seemingly weakened, because our core is slowly being mixed up. The core, just like in an apple, must not be something to be discarded in the dustbin of a political kitchen, or a byword simply to be bandied about.
The Singapore Core must, like this apple, be always held firm to develop further. The stalk holds the core of the apple together and anchors the fruit on the tree as the apple grows. Through this stalk, we are connected to our collective history and heritage, memories and identities. I, therefore, urge that the Government, even as it prepares us for growth and development, to value the physical, cultural and natural heritage of our landscape, as also mentioned by the hon Member Dr Chia Shi-Lu earlier.
I am heartened in looking at the updated land use plan that much of Yew Tee is left as a green countryside. But beyond our little corner of Singapore, what of the disappearing history around us, the cultural anchors that are evident in many other nations.
For ours is a young country. We are still attempting to root the Singaporeaness in each of us, the importance of a shared heritage and history cannot come at the expense of growth, neither can we be prepared to welcome more newcomers if we have no firm culture or heritage of our own to speak about.
The core is also not about how big or how small, but how important it is. The apple cannot function without a core, artificially modifying a fruit so that it is seedless leaves it an odd construct, an abnormality of nature.
A nation such as ours will not be a nation without that core. We will not be able to produce and expand our core or spread our seeds. So even as we argue about concepts like demographic-fertility ratios, 5.9 million or 6.9 million, we may need to return to that core and define ourselves first.
Let us first see ourselves as a people, as a nation. Let it not be a case that Singapore ends up like the Singapore Stone; forgotten, placed somewhere in a
Page: 79
museum.
Munshi Abdullah, Singapore's foremost chronicler of his time, wrote in his autobiography, the Hikayat Abdullah, about this remarkable rock. He said and I quote:
\"Many learned men came to try to read it. Some brought flour-paste to make a cast, others rubbed lamp-black to make the hidden lettering visible. But for all of that, they exhausted their ingenuity in trying to find out what language the letters represented, and they reached no decisions.\"
Mdm Speaker, we are in the company of many learned men and women. It is time for us to bring our people together, to decipher a common future, a united aspiration. Let us not exhaust ourselves with the arguments about language or numbers but settle first our hearts and find common ground for the good of our people, our future.
Mdm Speaker, I strongly support the amendments to the Motion standing in the name of the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa. Like him, I believe we must build a strong Singapore Core. It is not based simply on numbers, but on the strength of our identity.
We must promote a sense of rootedness and belonging; we must cherish our heritage, our common history; we must strengthen our identity so that, as newcomers arrive on our shores, they add vibrancy to it rather than dilute it; we must uphold a sense of social justice for the needy amongst us; we must also ensure that with growth comes affordability and the stabilising of inflation; we must protect our workers, especially the most vulnerable, that they are not just collateral for growth – better jobs, better pay; Singaporeans first; we must value families, so that our young couples continue to be passionate about raising children, not because we have abundant subsidies, but because children complete us; we must recognise the sacrifices of our national servicemen in protecting our shores, in making our country what it is; we must also uplift our women, that their equal sacrifice as mothers, sisters, wives, workers are not swept under the carpet; we must provide sufficiently for our elderly, that their contributions in building up our nation are not forgotten, and again that we do not define them simply as statistics in the OASR; we must plan our infrastructure with foresight that new towns like Tengah and Bidahari will not be saddled with transport or service woes, such as those faced by towns recently, with major expressways closed by accidents.
Page: 80
Mdm Speaker, might I add that existing towns like our quiet Yew Tee, with our 82,000 residents not be forgotten in this growth.
Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I support the basis of the White Paper, but I urge that we all work hand in hand and engage fellow Singaporeans to formulate a dynamic Singapore. There are many stark challenges ahead of us, which the White Paper endeavours to address. But let us also not forget that a fruit devoid of its core will no longer be fruitful. This is our Singapore, our common responsibility. What we decide for the present, will impact our people and our future.
Mr Wong Kan Seng (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mdm Speaker, when the White Paper was first released, many Singaporeans were shocked by the headline number of 6.9 million people by the year 2030. This figure had been much misunderstood and became a big distraction. It evoked strong reactions from Singaporeans. They wondered why this Government is planning to increase the population by another 1.6 million when the infrastructure is already not enough to cater to their needs, and many Singaporeans are still waiting for their homes. Singaporeans feel that Singapore is already too crowded; the transport network is inadequate, and they have to compete with foreigners for jobs. In this context, they do not look forward to the prospect of a larger population, even if that only means that it will happen in 17 years' time. The plans announced by MOT and MND to ramp up our transport network, build more parks, homes, waterways to provide a high-quality environment were simply washed over in people's mind.
The Government has repeatedly stressed that the figure is not a target. It is used to plan the infrastructure required. If we search our hearts and conscience, we will know that this is not a rash Government. For decades, it is the same Government that shared the country's problems openly with the people. This way, it hopes to rally the people to find solutions to the difficulties that we faced together. The Government's objective is to sketch out a possible scenario for Singapore in 2030. This is laudable. They took the bull by the horns and are upfront with the people. They could have taken the easy way out and not bring this subject up till after the next GE, or better still, two GEs from now when the transportation network is improved and flats are built. But typical of this Government who has always been open with the people about the country's problems, it has taken this bold move to share frankly with Singaporeans the
Page: 81
key challenges that Singapore is facing.
Mdm Speaker, this White Paper is not about growing our population to 6.5 million or 6.9 million, or even 5.9 million. Neither is it about the GDP growth per se. It is about Singaporeans' future. It is about how we can provide enough well-paid jobs to the people, especially our younger generation, most of whom will have a diploma or a degree, and what we must do to provide for the needs of an ageing population. The demographic change in the next 17 years is a serious challenge that will confront us, regardless of the political party in power. The debate on the White Paper and the feedback by the public will inform our choices as a society and help us to understand the long-term consequences and implications of these hard choices. There will be trade-offs, either today or we pay in the future.
Being a small country, Singapore will always have population issues. Let us cast our mind back to the last decade. The context of the population issues that confronted Singapore 10 years ago was very different from what we face today. In the year 2000, we were just recovering from the Asian Financial Crisis in 1998. In 2003, just as we were recovering from 9/11 and the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests, SARS struck. Singapore economy grew by 1.1% and unemployment hit a high of 4%. COE prices were on the down trend. Some Members will also recall the debate in Parliament about how to clear the 10,000 units of unsold HDB flats. It was not that long ago.
Two thousand and four marked the beginning of a boom cycle to 2008. Companies were investing and employing again. Yet, it was not without challenges and risks. Global interest in China as a source of cheap labour and low-cost manufacturing base picked up. The US economy was vibrant and talk of renaissance in Europe was common. Now we know what is happening. There were good opportunities then for Singapore, and if taken, would benefit all Singaporeans. Any Government would find it hard to pass that over. We had to make sure Singapore continues to build and to attract foreign companies and investments so that they can create jobs for Singaporeans. Unemployment fell to 3.4% and to 3.1% the following year. We were quickly running out of the labour pool to keep companies interested in coming to Singapore. We were concerned about competition so we decided to let in more transient foreign workers and grant permanent residence and citizenships to more people. Even with the increase in foreigners and PRs, our unemployment dropped to 2.1% in 2007. By 2008, people were feeling the strain seeing too many foreigners among them and they were also worried about their future as a result of the Global Financial Crisis.
Page: 82
Madam, with the benefit of hindsight, we were a bit too liberal then in bringing in too many foreign transient workers, and granting PR. By January 2009, the Government responded by tightening the immigration criteria to take in less PRs and new citizens. Could we have built up more infrastructure and housing then, when barely a few years before that, our prospects were not very bright? Again, with hindsight, many think that the Government should. Admittedly, the Government was caught off-footed.
But the Global Financial Crisis came swiftly in 2008. The future looked very bleak in January 2009 when the Government brought forward the Budget, and rolled out the Resilience Package to help Singaporeans and companies ride out the crisis. There were still some job losses but, overall, unemployment of Singaporeans was held steady, and some transient foreign workers left Singapore. I saw all these developments firsthand. I was in the ring as the Minister for Home Affairs and, later, as the Minister in charge of Population.
While we can change immigration policies quickly, tweaking the criteria, infrastructure is a different story. Building new HDB flats, private homes, new schools and new hospitals takes more than two years. Constructing a new MRT line or a major highway takes more than six years, sometimes more. This lag in infrastructure investment thus contributed to the feeling of congestion, overcrowding and competition from transient foreign workers as Singaporeans feel today.
The White Paper before this House today is the effort made by the Government to prevent a repeat of history. The point is that it is not whether the population size should be 5.9 million or 6.9 million. It is about how we keep our economy growing at a sustainable rate, create better jobs for Singaporeans and provide care and support to our elders who have contributed much to our country. These objectives are the key responsibilities of the Government. But they must have the people's support. We must build a consensus on these objectives in order for the Government to act for the benefit of Singaporeans. For the White Paper and the Land Use Plan sketched out by the Government, it should start investing in infrastructure today so that Singapore has the capacity to respond to the challenges and the needs of tomorrow. These are fundamental shifts, as explained by Deputy Prime Minister Teo and Minister Khaw Boon Wan recently.
The White Paper makes assumptions on the projected rate of economic growth, Singaporean population growth, numbers of new PRs and new citizens to add and how many transient workers for a certain level of economic activity to serve the interests of Singaporeans. Transient foreign workers are required
Page: 83
when we cannot find enough of our own Singaporeans to fill the jobs. But Madam, in the light of global uncertainties and rapid changes, the jury is still out as to whether we can achieve our goals. We cannot take economic growth for granted.
Mdm Speaker, allow me to say a bit more on the issue of our demography. We have heard the old adage \"Demography is destiny\". A shrinking workforce impacts job creation and tax collection. An ageing population stresses government budgets and healthcare. Without economic growth, the Government cannot generate tax dollars and budget surpluses to invest in the next generation while meeting the social security needs of the present generation. Failure to find the right balance will cause economic uncertainty. Developed economies like Japan and Europe are grappling with this right now. The threat looms large for other growth economies even the likes of China. Being used to having economic growth for decades except for short periods, Singaporeans cannot imagine what it will be like to have zero or very low economic growth for long periods. But we do not need to look far to find an example in Japan. Its growth has been anaemic for the last two decades and people's lives have not gotten better. Its society is ageing rapidly, and since a few years ago, deaths are more than newborns. Let us hope that Europe is not heading the way that Japan did in the last twenty years, or it will affect us.
Singapore's ageing society is not spared if we do not grow. We are ageing faster than many developed economies. There will be a tipping point where a shrinking workforce will not generate sufficient tax dollars to meet the needs of the growing elderly population. This will be exacerbated by companies that leave for other markets if our workforce is not sufficient to meet their needs. Singapore does not have unlimited past reserves to plug the gaps. The White Paper sets out the Government's thinking on how to keep Singapore going and continue the Singapore Story. We have to have some growth in order to take care of Singaporeans. And we need workforce growth to do that, apart from productivity.
There are three ways to grow the workforce: (a) encourage procreation; (b) increase labour participation rate; and (c) bring in transient foreign workers with the right profiles.
The first is a highly personal choice and takes time. The second is a long running Government effort, and our participation rate is high by global standards. I am sure the Government will continue to find innovative ways to encourage Singaporeans to work as long as possible and attract men and women back to the workforce. But no matter what measures are taken, the
Page: 84
number of Singaporeans aged 65 years and above will increase. That will mean a bigger budget for social expenditure and health care. With fewer Singaporeans working, tax revenue will also be less. This leaves the last option, and we now know that pacing the influx of transient foreign workers is important and the Government is calibrating the inflow. There are no silver bullets.
We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans. We are working to ensure that our children will be well-educated and brought up in a safe and secure environment. That our young adults can realise their aspirations, find good jobs and take care of their families. That our elderly can spend their twilight years in comfort and in dignity. Let us work together to achieve this for the sake of Singapore and our families. Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, I support the Motion moved by Deputy Prime Minister Teo and the amendments by Member of Parliament Liang Eng Hwa.
The Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and Deputy Leader of the House (Mr Heng Chee How): Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate. Every country wishes to be strong, to be united and to provide well for the people. But not every country succeeds. What makes the difference? What is the secret?
Let us look at China. For as long as we know, China has been a big country, in terms of population, but in terms of its international standing, it has not always been high. If you look back into the history of China, you know that at the points of its weakness, it has been the subject of invasion and bullying by other countries. On the other hand, at the highpoints of its history, there is a strong direct correlation to its economic strength, and that economic strength reinforces and is reinforced by its political and military standing and capabilities.
Now, we look at Japan, a country that has been often quoted in the last few days. Japan went into the Second World War and was defeated. But then it mounted a spirited and disciplined economic recovery after the Second World War and it became the second biggest economy in the world after the US. Then in the 1990s, it went into recession deflation and was caught there for two decades. Its economy stagnated and eventually it was overtaken by China in the
Page: 85
year 2010 as the second biggest economy in the world, after holding that position for 42 years. Meanwhile, Japan's population aged very quickly – low birth rate and, as a result, the population began shrinking. In 2012, 1.2 million Japanese babies were born but 1.24 million Japanese died. The Japanese government projected that by 2060, the country's population will shrink by another 30% from today's 128 million and go down to 87 million. Those aged 65 and above will increase from today's 14.8% to 40% of that population. That country battles deflation, which saw the value of assets held by the Japanese people decline. And these are developments that worry the Japanese, rightly so.
We look at the third country. We look at Ireland in Europe. According to a report dated 20 September 2012, that is, September last year, by a news agency called IrishCentral, \"Almost 40,000 young Irish people are leaving the country per year, the new unemployment and workforce figures show. Unemployment is sky high, at 14.8%, but the figure would be much worse were it not for the emigration drain\". And most emigrants are heading to Britain, Australia and to the United States and mainland Europe are also popular. The Irish Independent, which is a newspaper, reports the numbers at work in Ireland have shrunk by almost 30,000, which shows that thousands are fleeing the country, according to a economist, Conall Coille. \"Many young Irish people are either staying on in education or moving abroad to avail of significant job opportunities,\" he said.
This is in such a stark contrast to the days where the Irish economy was named the Celtic Tiger, when it did very well for the people, and where the Irish from around the world were attracted back to Ireland. This net emigration reminds one of the 1845 Irish potato famine which drove the Irish out of their own country in search of food. Now, it is the derailed economy which is driving the Irish out, to find jobs. And Australia reports that the Irish are a big source of the manpower working in Australia, in the Australian mines, at the construction sites.
A country that is seen by others as growing weaker economically and shrinking in numbers will find it harder and harder to hold its own in the world and will become more vulnerable to being ignored or being bullied. The people of such a country will suffer for their country's weakness.
When we travel, we know the value of the Singapore passport. Other countries regard Singapore well. Why?
Page: 86
Because Singapore has risen in the global ranks and has done well economically over the past five decades. We achieved full employment and has produced a better standard of living over the years. This, against an international picture of growing unemployment, is a blessing and an achievement.
I remember the story of Cinderella. For her, a magical moment was granted her to go to the royal ball, and everything was transformed. And she went there in all her glory. But she had to leave that party before the clock strikes 12. Because once the clock hits 12 o'clock, the carriage will change back into being the pumpkin, the horsemen will revert to being mice, and her gown will go back to being rags.
Singapore's movement from being an under-developed country to a developed one happened much quicker than most other countries. But, like Japan, we also have a rapidly ageing population, and our citizen population is expected to start shrinking from 2025, which is a mere 12 years from now. This is a time bomb and it is ticking. Will we experience our own Cinderella moment, when our achievements will begin to unravel? I certainly do not want to see that happen. Not to us, not to our children.
But can it happen to us? Why not? As Member Jessica Tan rightly said, \"Growth does not just happen.\" And I take that to also mean that \"Jobs do not just happen\". Certainly, good jobs for citizens do not just happen, even with the best of heart. It really does take brainwork and a lot of hard legwork to make happen these good jobs and to keep and to grow them. Every organ in the body has its important use, and we should, indeed, strive to be both heart and head, but never heartless and mindless.
I am the Executive Secretary of the Union of Electronic and Electrical Industries (UWEEI). The electronics industry is key to our manufacturing sector. Over the past year, we have seen increasing volatility. Shorter work weeks, temporary shutdowns and sporadic retrenchments have increased compared to the year before. Companies report intense international competition and price pressure. Many companies say they cannot see clearly the demand pattern in the coming quarters. Workers in the industry are not worried about growth. They are worried about their jobs, and how to provide properly for their families if something should happen to their jobs.
This country has been built on the back of the blood, sweat and toil of all our people. What we all want, all of us, is to keep building it, keep making it
Page: 87
better and give each succeeding generation more confidence and more tools to construct an even better future for themselves.
So, how do we then defuse this time bomb that I was speaking about? How do we realistically, energetically and purposefully prolong our progress, and not slip back, so that in time to come, Singaporeans travelling will continue to see their passports respected and Singaporeans well regarded?
There are three things to avoid in order to do that: one, let not our population and workforce shrink – do not let that shrink; two, do not let our unemployment or under-employment rise; three, do not let our standard of living drop.
But to be a country wanting to be taken seriously and to be respected and, above all, to have a bright future for our citizens, we must aspire more than just to avoid decline. Therefore, we must judiciously and sustainably grow our population and workforce; maintain full employment and improve the value of jobs that our people do; and raise our standard of living.
The White Paper and its debate allow us to have our say on how this can be done, to produce the Singapore that we all want to see in 2030. And in many ways, this parallels and complements Our Singapore Conversation.
The hon Mr Liang Eng Hwa proposed an amendment to the original Motion and its four aspects have been mentioned again in detail by Members who spoke before me. So, I shall not go into it. But suffice to say that it lays very clearly that the purpose of this Motion in this debate is not about our population number, it is not even about the speed but it is about the well-being and the future – a good future – for our people. That is why we started, that is what we are doing, that is where we are headed.
Various Ministers have given the assurance that their Ministries will do whatever it takes to directly address the problems of shortages and congestion in public goods that are currently being experienced and will go well beyond that to ensure that the standard of living of Singaporeans improve noticeably as we go forward, even as our population grows. This serious and timely execution of these commitments by the Government and the reporting of the fulfilment of these commitments would be critical to credibility and public trust. We must not slip or fail in these but must, through action and outcomes, validate public confidence in the longstanding track record of the Government
Page: 88
to make things work.
Ministers and Members of Parliament spoke at length these past few days on the subject of growing our population through encouraging births and replenishing our population each year with enough PRs and new citizens.
Even the Workers' Party agrees that there is a need to grow the Singapore population, so the 5.9 million, for example, is more than today's 5.3 million. However, the Workers' Party did propose to cap the replenishing through new citizens to 10,000 a year, versus the White Paper's range of 15,000 to 25,000 a year. For the information of this House, every year, about 18,000 people die in our population.
What it means is that at 10,000 a year, it will not be enough to make up for even those who pass away; and make their own hope of achieving 1% growth in Singapore's citizen workforce between now and 2020 even harder to achieve; which will then intensify the pressure on the Government to let in even more foreign manpower to make up the shortage caused by the proposal while at the same time calling for a freeze between now and 2020 on foreign workers; and bring forward the prospect of Singapore's population reaching the shrinking point. It actually can bring it forward. These are my concerns about that part of the recommendation.
I agree with Minister Grace Fu when she reiterated the Government's absolute resolve to doing its utmost and even more to encourage Singaporean births to boost our population. We all agree that the more we succeed in doing so, the less we need to worry or argue about the complexities and comparisons between citizens and non-citizens here, because we can rely more on our internal growth and regeneration and less on the outside. For this to happen, the Government and Singaporeans must work hand in hand and remove or lower the barriers to marriage and parenthood, to take advantage of improvements in incentives and arrangements to have more babies, and to keep trying.
Growing the workforce is related to but not exactly the same as growing the population. There are four ways to grow the workforce – school-leavers, making more productive use of current manpower, tapping currently less tapped local manpower sources as well as importing foreign manpower. Producing more babies – not easy, but the babies produced today will only enter the workforce 20 years hence.
Page: 89
We have two challenges to meet. Firstly, it is to enable businesses to continue to operate well in Singapore with sufficient manpower so that our current citizen workforce will continue to enjoy full employment. Second, to upgrade the value of jobs and the capability and productivity of workers so that those employed can look forward to sustainable wage increases. A more capable and productive workforce has the same effect as having more workers who are less productive. A more capable and productive citizen workforce will help lessen the reliance on foreign manpower import, and, therefore, better safeguard the Singapore Core within the workforce. It will also help ensure that babies born now and entering the workforce in 20 years' time can have jobs that have been continually upgraded and are, therefore, better than those today. And this is a practical way to construct a brighter future for ourselves and our children.
On the Singapore Core, I wish to speak on two additional aspects; namely, tapping the less tapped local segments and nurturing fairness.
Another way to grow the workforce and to help anchor jobs in Singapore is to better tap the less-tapped segments. And, here, I want to speak on the older worker segment.
I urge the tripartite partners now to start working on extending the limit of the re-employment age beyond the current 65. In the law, it is already provided that it can go up to 67 without actually further legislating. But our re-employment law has started off at 62 to 65, from 1 January last year. I think that, in line with the discussions in this House, we want to maximise the tapping of our local sources, we would want to make sure that the re-employment is carried out smoothly, fairly and at the earliest opportune moment to see how it can be properly extended in a fair way.
Secondly, to enhance the ADVANTAGE scheme and other programmes to make it even more attractive for employers to transform their recruitment and work processes to be age-friendly. And reform ElderShield and reform the HPB workplace health programmes to introduce Wellness@work to improve health and reduce concerns by employers and employees about rising healthcare and health insurance costs as workers age.
On ElderShield, I note that it is currently a contingency insurance scheme that makes a cash payout when the insured person is disabled to a given extent. There is nothing in it to incentivise the insured person to age well, whether by way of premium differentiation or participation in wellness programmes. There
Page: 90
is also no link between the payout made and what the money is used for. Hence, the payout may or may not be for better eldercare. But in other countries, such as in the US, there are alternative arrangements on how this kind of insurance can be arranged and with better linkages to ageing well, as well as eldercare, with the payout. And I urge, therefore, the Government and the insurance industry to review the use of ElderShield beyond periodically adjusting premiums and payouts so that we can then integrate better with the workplace wellness programmes and to directly also address concerns of employers and workers on healthcare costs and health insurance costs relating to an ageing workforce.
My final point, Mdm Speaker, is on fairness in the workplace. Fairness and the Singapore Core should be taken together as the twin concurrent objectives of employment. This is to be upfront with both employers and workers. The Singapore Core will remind employers that when it comes to recruitment, retention, promotion, retrenchment – we expect employers to bear the Singapore Core seriously in mind. At the same time, we expect employers to do more to demonstrate merit-based employment practices, and for unions and Government to remain alert to toxic discriminatory environments and corporate practices, and for all three parties to commit to continual and resolute action against discrimination and to embrace good and innovative fair employment practices to attract and retain talent in an increasingly tight labour market.
Madam, the destiny of countries and their peoples is not pre-ordained. Their fortunes wax and wane according to the honesty, clear-mindedness, determination and compassion with which they seize opportunities and tackle the challenges before them. For the sake of Singaporeans and Singapore, let us do so with purpose, discipline and heart. Madam, I support the Motion as moved by the hon Member Liang Eng Hwa.
The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information and Minister for Education (Ms Sim Ann): Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although we are debating the Population White Paper, we still need to celebrate Chinese New Year. In line with tradition, I would like to wish all my Chinese parliamentary colleagues a very Happy Chinese New Year. For our non-Chinese parliamentary
Page: 91
colleagues, I wish you a pleasant holiday.
Mdm Speaker, a few days ago, I met a resident at the local market in my constituency while distributing Chinese New Year couplets. He expressed great concern at the population projections contained in the White Paper. Initially, I thought he was going to talk to me about traffic congestion, housing prices and about the cost of living. Because these are, indeed, some of the issues that our residents are very concerned about. However, what he said was, \"With more and more people on this island, what are we all going to eat?\" Singapore imports most of its food and he was worried that food supply will be a problem. He wanted me to bring this up during the Parliament debate.
His question left me in deep thought. I pondered over it because I felt that it was very interesting. Indeed, what are we all going eat? The term for population in Mandarin is made up of the characters \"human\" and \"mouth\", and every human being needs to eat. With more people on this island, we are going to have more demand for services like education, healthcare, transport, recreation, social security and so on. Unlike other countries, we cannot live off the land, whether in the form of agriculture, mining or petroleum. However, we each have a pair of hands, and we can work. With our hands, we can work for others, create wealth and support ourselves. We can pay taxes and when these taxes are redistributed to help others, we can contribute to society. So, manpower also involves the concept of \"production\" and \"contribution\".
Of course, population and manpower are inter-related. Children and youths are the manpower of the future. The working adults of today – including many of us here in Parliament – are going to be elderly folks in the future. Population does not equate to manpower, but manpower constitute the population. When we have sufficient manpower, we can generate wealth and the society can be prosperous, even if there are no natural resources. Without sufficient manpower, even with the best policies, there will be problems.
As we are all aware, our country's fertility rate has been at the low end for a long time. When the population ages rapidly, the gap between active manpower and total population will widen. This also means that the next generation will have to bear a heavy burden. How do we change the situation? We will have to try to ensure that there is sufficient manpower without increasing the long-term population burden of this country.
So, bringing in young foreign manpower is the main solution to increase manpower and lighten the burden of our future generation. They do not remain
Page: 92
in Singapore for the long term. When they are old and perhaps need more medical expenses, they need not rely on our resources. However, when they are in their most energetic and active years, they would be able to contribute to our economy and service our people. In the past few years, the bulk of increase in population came from this group of people.
Can we solve the manpower problem without foreigners? When discussing this issue, there are two aspects: one is to raise the local fertility rate and the other is to raise productivity. But both require time, and both will require us to explore solutions. Of course, the pace of bringing in foreign manpower has to be properly calibrated. The problems of overcrowding and congestion, particularly in the area of transport, are pressing and immediate. The key issues being resolved at the Government and constituency levels are all related to these problems.
The Government has now tightened measures on foreign manpower, moderated the pace of increase, but in deciding the population of 2020 or 2030, the number of foreign manpower being brought in remains a key issue. So, a critical plank of the current debate now is how much manpower is required to serve the needs of our people and our economy in future? Hence, the Population White Paper is essentially a Manpower White Paper. If there are too many people, then there will be congestion and overcrowding. As a Member of Parliament, 70% to 80% of the daily problems that I deal with are related to transport congestion. Resolving these problems includes meeting with the other committees and also meeting with our residents to get their feedback. Of course, I also hope that the transport problems faced by my residents can be resolved immediately, so that residents can commute to and from work and school smoothly. The Transport Minister has said that problems of traffic congestion are being actively resolved. There will be some short-term inconvenience as these plans are being implemented but I am confident that these issues can be resolved.
But the shortage of manpower is a problem faced by many businesses and is harder to resolve. So, we hear these conflicting voices, one of being over-populated and the other about not having enough manpower. This is something that I often hear in my constituency and it is not surprising. This is because, the residents that I serve are not just employees, but they are also entrepreneurs who create job opportunities for fellow Singaporeans, especially the SMEs. In my constituency, too, there are many older folks who have spent their best years serving the society and now we need more manpower to take care of their needs. The life expectancy of Singaporeans is now longer and these older Singaporeans will remain with us for a longer time and we owe it to them to
Page: 93
take care of their needs. In my constituency, there are also younger families who hope for better childcare facilities, and again, there is a manpower issue.
Not long ago, I attended an annual dinner organised by an elderly day care facility in my constituency, and it was attended by many old folks. Some were accompanied by their family members, yet there were also many who were accompanied by their maids, and few came on their own. Majority of those who performed and entertained the old folks at the event are foreign workers. On usual days, they are physiotherapists and care-givers, taking care of the elderly to ensure their physical and mental well-being. We all know that it is not easy to employ people to take care of elderly folks. The demand for these workers will only increase with time. Thankfully, we have these foreign workers to take care of our elderly, or their quality of life would have been greatly affected. But what about the future? If we were to \"freeze frame\" right now and not allow any increase in foreign manpower, and rely only on exploring local manpower, what will happen?
Yesterday I attended my usual meet-the-people session (MPS). In the past one-and-a-half years, we have seen one type of problem increasing while another type of problem decreasing. What has gone down? One group of people are those applying for HDB flats for the first time. But on the other hand, we have many SMEs who are requesting for more manpower, and their numbers have gone up. Last night, at my MPS, there were also many of these SME businessmen. At the end of the MPS, I was discussing with my volunteers if we were to take up the Workers' Party's proposal, if we were to \"freeze frame\", stop increasing foreign manpower, and just explore local manpower, which are the groups of people that we can tap on?
Well, first of all, we have retirees, we also have homemakers who take care of their families. How do we attract them back into the workforce? Indeed, this is something we should work on. As Minister Iswaran said earlier, this suggestion is not an issue. However, the more critical issue is, if we freeze the number of foreign workers and we employ retirees, some may be willing, yet there will be others not willing to work. If we try to employ homemakers who need to take care of their families, they may say, \"Yes, I could go back to work but then who is going to take care of my kids? Can I engage a foreign domestic helper to come and take care of my kids?\" Well, you would probably say, \"I am sorry but because of the freeze in foreign manpower, you can't engage foreign maids\" or \"Then can I place my children in a childcare centre?\" The childcare centre might say that \"I am sorry, but I cannot get any locals and I cannot hire foreigners now, I cannot accept your child.\" The homemaker may then very well
Page: 94
say, \"Then I might as well just stay at home.\"
So, some of you might say, \"If we were to increase their salaries, I am sure somebody would be attracted surely and would not that also make the Singapore economy grow now because of the salary growth?\" In that sense, the homemakers will be able to enjoy a higher salary and, at the same time, they can still go home and provide a better living for their family. If that is the case, then childcare fees will also go up.
Then some people might also suggest that we go according to the Workers' Party plan, and tap on our reserves progressively. This sounds like an attractive option, but it may bring about another problem. Our reserves are set aside for rainy days, if we were to tap on our reserves now, for example, to subsidise the salaries of local workers so that they enjoy higher salaries and our Singaporeans enjoy better quality of living, then for how long do we tap into our reserves, how much will we use? Our reserves are used to safeguard the value of the Singapore dollar, it is the main tool used against imported inflation. We are all concerned about the rising cost of living. If we were to take their option, then the rise in cost of living may go up drastically and not gradually. No matter how we do the sums, it just does not add up. So, I am going to leave it to the retirees, homemakers and others who worry about the cost of living to work out the sums themselves.
What I really wish to say is that no one can stop the process of ageing. Our population is growing and ageing at the same time. We must have the right balance of population and manpower. Mr Liang Eng Hwa, my fellow Member of Parliament from Holland-Bukit Timah, has proposed some amendments and I support these amendments. His amendments highlight the following, that is, maintaining a strong Singaporean Core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from dwindling. Secondly, recognise that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, not a population target. Thirdly, he also called on the Government to place priority on resolving current strains on the infrastructure, especially transport, and called on the Government to plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand. Fourth, the amendments also called on the Government to ensure that our population policies will benefit Singaporeans in terms of better job opportunities and salaries. Fifth, carry out medium term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, and global trends.
Page: 95
The prosperity and progress that Singapore has achieved over the years are due not only to the hard work of our people and successful Government policies, but also due, in no small part, to the fact that the pace of population and manpower growth was highly favourable to us.
Problems of crowding and congestion are, indeed, painful, but solutions are being implemented. The Minister for National Development, Mr Khaw Boon Wan, announced yesterday that the Government will get ready the infrastructure ahead of demand. This is a timely move. On the other hand, the issues of ageing and manpower shortage are long term and profound. Like the movement of a glacier, the changes may not be easily visible but, nevertheless, inexorable. It will also completely alter the various aspects of our society. Therefore, I hope my fellow Members will not just focus on the topic of the \"tap\" and neglect the existence of the \"glacier\".
Mr Low Thia Khiang said earlier that the Government cannot assume that, just because our forefathers were immigrants, we can continue to accept more immigrants in our midst, just like \"we were part of Malaysia, does it mean that we can now allow ourselves to go back to Malaysia?\" I think that such a saying is a bit too extreme. Mr Low Thia Khiang also said that, \"Do not forget that we are a city.\" Here, I would like to say to Mr Low that, indeed, we are a city but we are not an isolated city, we are also not a fortress. A city is a centre, but without a hinterland, it cannot be a centre. Therefore, we have always been an open city. Singapore is an open city, it is only natural for people to move in and out of this city. Attracting better talent and growing in strength is part of Singapore's developing history. To remain open towards foreigners is also part of the Singapore spirit. Here, in Parliament, we are talking about manpower numbers. We are also talking about the pace of population growth. We are talking about national allegiance. I urge Mr Low to speak according to facts when discussing serious issues, and not use exaggerated language. I hope you will take care of your own blood pressure and that of others.
Mdm Speaker, the most pressing issue we face now is: how to continue to reap the benefits of adequate manpower while addressing the needs of the total population? Solutions are not so clear-cut and they will require constant review and readjustment. I am of the view that amendments proposed by Mr Liang do take into account the immediate challenges of infrastructure, the long-term crisis of ageing and manpower shortage and also the possible uncertainties in a changing world. Therefore, Mdm Speaker, I support the amended Motion.
Page: 96
Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Low.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Now, first of all, I would like to thank Ms Sim Ann for her concern. My blood pressure is very normal. Neither do I have high cholesterol. However, men are emotional beings so when I see people not being concerned with the future of Singapore, I feel so sorry; hence when I spoke just now, I was a bit emotional. But this is quite normal; we are all human beings.
Ms Sim talked about manpower at length and how we are going to solve the problem. All right then, let us have 6.9 million people in 2030 and 10 million in 2050. I do not know how to count afterwards any more. Let the future of Singapore do the counting.
Just now, she said that the Workers' Party proposed to make use of the reserves. We have never talked about that. What Mr Pritam Singh said was that if the expenses on increasing our fertility rate were too high, we could consider tapping on the reserves. It was not meant for subsiding productivity.
Ms Sim Ann: (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Thank you, Mr Low, for the explanation. I am very relieved to hear that he has enjoyed such good health. That is very important. I am also relieved to hear from Mr Low that the reserves are not to be used to subsidise productivity. However, regarding the mathematic question I posed just now, I still have difficulty doing the calculation.
Regarding our concern for the future, what I am saying is that I am not only concerned with Mr Low's health. On behalf of the Government, I would say we are concerned with all our people's present and future, the lives of our next generation. That is why we are here to have this emotional, yet realistic debate.
Mdm Speaker: Well, I am glad that we are having a very healthy debate [Laughter].
Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, whether we support or oppose the Motion, whether we do things the same way or differently, one
Page: 97
projection will come true. Citizens aged 65 and above will triple to 900,000 by the year 2030. I did a calculation. I will become one of them. I will belong to the 65 years old group. We will fill five Ang Mo Kio towns.
As our population grows older, we will need more eldercare and healthcare workers. Making aged care, support facilities and services accessible and affordable is a priority. More nursing homes, senior care and activity centres will be needed. To meet increasing demand, we will also need foreign workers alongside locals, to build and work in these facilities.
Many people understand that we need to complement our local workforce with foreign workers. To reduce our dependence on foreign workers, we need to do more to enhance the image, pay and career prospects of those jobs where not many Singaporeans go into today. For instance, about 16,000 healthcare staff recently received better pay through initiatives that include training, job redesign, and better use of devices. Other sectors should emulate this as well. We must continue to make more jobs more attractive to Singaporeans.
On top of that, employers should not just rely on the current way of deploying workers. Self-service payment kiosks such as those at supermarkets and AXS machines are good examples of labour-saving devices and business model. The reduction of the need for counter staff is a significant benefit.
Apart from redesigning jobs, I also welcome the Acting Minister for Manpower's plans to look beyond the statutory duties of his Ministry to set up an independent body to deal with manpower disputes. I do have a suggestion. Might we not be better served if we take a whole-of-Government and whole-of-business approach? Instead of depending solely on MOM to manage and resolve grievances involving either local or foreign workers, perhaps other agencies should step in and take greater ownership.
Let me illustrate. For example, the Singapore Tourism Board can play a more active role to resolve manpower issues involving tourist guides. I am also glad to know that LTA is keen to play a more active mediatory role for taxi drivers, and is in the midst of discussing how to structure a dispute resolution process. Taxi union leaders I spoke with welcome this move by the LTA. The crux lies in our mindset. I urge that the various agency and industry association should not abdicate their roles, and depend solely on MOM to resolve manpower-related issues and disputes. I also agree with Minister Lim Swee Say that husbands need to participate more actively in raising a child, not only on weekends. But of equal importance is how employers view the local workforce,
Page: 98
in particular, working parents. Many, as yet, do not see flexible work arrangements and work-life culture as key strategies.
Some parents I met shared that their employers and co-workers are not showing enough support at the workplace. Bosses are concerned about having to find staff to cover the duties of working mothers or parents when they are away. Their co-workers lament about having to do more work. How do we view working parents? It cannot augur well for efforts to boost local fertility rate if parents with young children are viewed as an inconvenience. Employers need to adopt a right attitude towards parents, especially working mothers.
Perhaps the Government can consider giving Special Employment Credit to employers who are pro-hiring of working mothers. I previously proposed this idea and I think this is the right time to reinforce and reintroduce this concept. This may send the right signal and further incentivise companies who are keen to offer flexible work arrangements and attract more mothers to return to the workforce.
As co-workers, we also need to change their attitude towards their working parent colleagues as well. When they need to be excused to look after their young children, do show them greater understanding. Beyond the workplace, to encourage more Singaporeans to have babies, we need to also address their other concerns. At this juncture, let me declare my interest as the Executive Secretary of the Education Services Union. For example, many parents share with me that it is important to have quality pre-school education.
Recently, I met with a group of childcare teachers. I was deeply impressed with their passion in the work they do, and how they are continuously on the lookout to deepen their competencies. However, they also heard that there are better pay and career prospects in other sectors. What is worse, some parents have even labelled them \"nannies\". Recently, some told me that they have been asked to double-up as cooks in the childcare centre, and to be trained as bus attendants in case the children got to go on excursion. This is shocking because, in this way, we are further demeaning the role of pre-school educators. It is no wonder that many are tempted to leave the profession.
To hire and retain experienced and good teachers, more needs to be done to enhance their image, pay and career prospects. Many of the operators I spoke with share that they would like to retain their staff and many pre-school educators want to remain in the industry.
Page: 99
I would like to propose a scheme, an initiative – we can call it a Professional Development Incentive Scheme. The idea is to retain and up-skill our educators. Under this scheme, if an early childhood educator completes certain professional development courses, she will be eligible for the Professional Development Incentive Award. For example, the award can pay somewhere between $6,000 and $10,000 at the end of three years if the person remains in the sector. The amount should be co-shared by the Government and operator. I tested this idea with some operators and teachers and many welcome such a move, of course, with some variations.
Through better image, retention and capability development package, only then can we attract more Singaporeans as early childhood educators. This will also give parents the assurance that their children will receive quality education. Beyond pre-school, I think it is also important that we address the types of opportunities our next generation, like my nieces and nephews, will have by the year 2030. For example, recently, I was at the kindergarten and I saw children there experimenting with various art forms and performing at concerts. Having piqued their interest at a young age, many may eventually venture into one of these areas as their choice profession.
Our youths today have a good choice on whether to pursue an academic track, vocational track or specialised in arts or the sports. Through my interactions with folks from Lasalle College of the Arts and Nanyang Academy of Fine Arts, I find that many could do with more support from their family and friends to pursue their dreams in the design and the arts. Whilst their friends opt to study in colleges and Polytechnics, they choose to study in an arts or design institution. Our mindset must change, and not perceive those who take a non-academic route differently. We can do more to help create a vibrant economy by supporting those who opt for an \"unconventional\" path.
What about those who choose to be a plumber, carpenter or electrician? They gain expertise in their crafts and have valuable skills that allow them to perform well in their job. Recently, I observed a Singaporean carpenter at work while he was at my kitchen to repair a cabinet. It was apparent to me that he was very skilful with his tools and could do the job very quickly. The availability of such local craftsmen like himself is becoming harder to find. Many are older, and the younger ones opt to work in the corporate world instead.
We should, therefore, apply our minds to transform our workforce and change our mindset about such professions. It is possible that a plumber or a taxi driver can one day earn as much and be as respected as an executive in the
Page: 100
office.
On this note, I would like to share a thought about a mindset change. Recently, many have welcomed the possible removal of a golf course from our land so that it can free up space for residential and other uses. Might I caution everybody to also consider that there are many workers who currently work in golf courses; be they landscape technicians, cleaners, security guards and service crew. Many are worried about whether or not theirs would be the one which would be cIosed down and they may lose their jobs.
I think it is important that we do not see Singapore purely as a number but we want to see a Singapore where everyone's needs are considered. Every job is respected and every worker is valued. We do not need to wait until 2030 to do that.
Mdm Speaker, to achieve a dynamic Singapore, we require more than just pragmatic solutions and sustainable policies. Fundamentally, I believe it is also about adopting the right mindset – to be adopted by employers, society, workers and everyone alike. The type of mindsets we bring will determine the outcomes for Singapore in 2030. With that, I support the Motion and the amendments.
Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, there is an old saying, \"When we fail to plan, we plan to fail\". In this debate, we must look at feasible and pro-active solution to support our country and our people. The world is a dynamic place and we are inevitably affected by the global shift and we cannot afford to maintain status quo and hope that we can survive. Allow me to continue in Mandarin.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, a friend from the union recently returned from a study trip in Taiwan and told me that the Taiwanese union leaders are very worried, because the Taiwan society is stuck in a situation akin to the fable \"Father and son on a mule\".
We have heard of this story, where a father and his son were bringing a mule into town. Initially, both of them did not ride on the mule, as they wanted to chat while strolling together. But a passerby said they were being silly to walk when they could just ride on the mule, so the father climbed onto the mule. After a while, another passerby came along and said the father was not loving,
Page: 101
for he himself rode on the mule while his son had to walk, so father and son decided to switch places. Yet another passerby came along and criticised the son for being unfilial. Father and son then decided they shall both ride on the mule, but was criticised again later for being cruel and abusive to the mule. Eventually, both carried the mule into town.
Many of us have heard this story. Many Taiwanese believe that Taiwan is now stuck in a similar situation. My Taiwanese union friends tell me that the so-called thought leaders and politicians need only use their mouth to talk, and it is enough to cause the government to change policies constantly. What is worrying is that populist opinion is constantly swayed, just like the moon on the first day and the 15th day of the lunar calendar, it is never the same. If we look at these views separately, they seem to make sense, but when put together, they contradict each other and nothing can be achieved. When political leaders are swayed by populist opinion, ultimately, it is the people who will suffer. If this goes on, it is no surprise that everyone is worried about the future of Taiwan. Will Singapore become like Taiwan? I am more optimistic, I believe we will not. As another Taiwan friend pointed out, we have a very pragmatic government and a united people. Our past experience tells us that no matter what the problem is, we should stay united and weather the storm together.
The aim of the Singapore Government is very clear, that is, to maintain a safe, clean society based on the rule of law to create a high quality living environment and attract people from all over the world to Singapore for travel and shopping. When the Government has collected enough taxes, it can then embark on more public construction projects and help the underprivileged, improve social welfare. Here, we create wealth and help the poor, so that everyone has a future.
One must be able to create wealth, in order to distribute it. Just as writer Wang Li Xing wrote in a commentary in Global Views Magazine, Singaporeans know the rules of survival well, have a good grasp of global trends, and are able to respond to changes. If Singapore does not change in response, the society will be affected. We know that this is the reason why we have stayed ahead in terms of competitiveness. Only when the Government has surpluses, can we embark on various programmes and welfare schemes, and the country can continue to improve. Ultimately, we want to create a society with full employment. This is a long-term goal.
Competitiveness guru Prof Michael Potter once said, to put it simply, the reason why USA has stayed ahead in competitiveness is the openness of the American society. In his column, he pointed out that there are five advantages
Page: 102
to being an open society – the best talents, the most capital, the most information, the best services and most value-for-money products will all flow towards an open society. We need to look into creating business opportunities, ways of creating wealth and generating economic growth, in order to maintain full employment in our society. In the long run, we need to ask ourselves, what is our aim? What is the purpose of our vision and plans? Who is it for?
After listening to the debate in the past few days, I am reminded of a phrase that I often quote, \"Without our country, where will our home be? Without soil, where can there be flowers?\" Just like how our elderly family members used to tell us when we were young, \"For whom do I labour for? The family.\"
I believe that an elected government that puts in so much effort, ultimately, has the good of our country at heart.
Mdm Speaker, many people claim that they know what is love. However, we know that there are some whose love endures, there are some whose love fails in the most unexpected circumstances, there are some who turn from love to hate, and there are some whose love does more harm than good. Love cannot be rash, love cannot be sustained by sweet nothings. To love requires heart, head and action, only then can we build a love nest together, and live blissfully forever. To love deeply, one has to love responsibly. To ensure love is sustained, one has to put in effort to manage the relationship.
Why do I say that? If one has to do all these just to love an individual, then the Government needs to do more than just talk, if it loves its people. If the Government cares for the people, it cannot just sweet talk, that is not practical. Ultimately, we have to think carefully, beyond rhetorics, we also need to have ideas and solutions, and produce results in the end. Let me use the hammer as an analogy.
If we have good work plans, and use the hammer according to plan, following the procedures set out, hammering systematically, we will be able to achieve our objectives and the results that we deserve. Conversely, if our objective is not set out clearly, with no plans and procedures in place, and we hammer haphazardly, we will only hear noise. Not only will we fail to produce anything, we might even get hurt.
(In English): Thinking of our hope for our future, thinking about home, Singapore. We must think of the best ways to serve the interests of Singaporeans. We arrived at what we are and where we are, not by chance, but
Page: 103
by choice. Our strength has historically been in our robust economy that, in turn, develops and drives employment, salaries and a better quality of life for all our people. We should continue to focus on these fundamentals, ensuring that the economy remains robust means our manpower pool must likewise grow in tandem. If we slow down our growth, we risk a dangerous decline. And more importantly, we, as unionists, are more worried about high unemployment.
What the tripartite social partners have been working together all the while is to achieve a sustainable growth for a full employment Singapore. As we debate on the projected numbers of foreign manpower needed to support our future growth, it is essential that we see the issues as one of not just quantity but quality. We do need more manpower, but, more importantly, we need skilled manpower to further strengthen the economy, create a vibrant and viable business landscape and drive full employment. Moving forward, we must ensure that we welcome talent that can contribute to our country and our economic growth so as to create even more jobs and keep our unemployment low.
The key is quality manpower. So, in fact, many countries have immigration and work permit policies that look at the quality or values that can be added to the landscape. Our current Employment Passes (EP) and S Pass (SP) scheme, while useful in its own way, is a little too focused on salary requirements. Perhaps we can relook and think of a more holistic way of assessing skills.
I agree with hon Member Patrick Tay that we should consider a \"COE\" – Conditions of Eligibility system – that ensures that a foreigner coming in has the work and language skills that ensure he or she can contribute to the nation. We could look at Australia, Sweden or even Switzerland for the examples that they have and the measures that they have carried out. In these countries, the requirements are even more robust, requiring employers to show that they have made \"intensive efforts\" to find a citizen or any foreign national that is already in the country to work. Employers must also show why applicants with priority were not suitable for the jobs.
These assessment systems range in many ways in comprehensiveness; perhaps we can review our current system against these to see if we can enhance our assessment of foreign workers and migrants. This not only improves the way we grow strategically, but offers reassurance to Singaporeans that new migrants and workers will, indeed, add value to Singapore.
Page: 104
Another area to look into is to consider requalification tests as well as to review if current work pass holders meet skill requirements. Perhaps we can institute skills certification or refresher courses to ensure that skills meet the standards needed to ensure fairness for our locals.
I would like to reiterate my call for MOM to make skills certification a requirement when renewing work permits even as the foreign labour tap continues to be tightened and urge MOM to seriously consider implementing skills certification and upgrading as a criterion for work pass renewal to raise the quality of the foreign workers who are already here. It would be a way to solve the manpower squeeze faced by companies. Even though they may cost more, but they will deliver higher productivity and reduce costs in the long run.
In addition, I would like to also renew my call that I made during the Deepavali celebration for the Migrant Workers' Centre last year, to the Government to grant foreign spouses of Singaporeans with better supports for skill training and certification, as well as employment assistance, if possible. This group is a strong alternative source of manpower, although it is a smaller pool but it is useful for us to help them. Today, as Long-Term Social Visit Pass holders, these individuals are not subject to the same controls, such as the foreign worker quota, as the typical Work Permit holder, making them attractive to employers who, after having invested in productivity, still find themselves requiring foreign augmentation. And they can consider this group. We should liberalise the scheme to facilitate more of them to come into the workforce.
I believe we can do more to keep on top of recruitment and employment practices to ensure that they are fair and open and to ensure job positions are offered to Singaporeans first – and only if the position cannot be filled from within the Singapore labour market or through the employer's own training programme that we then look to foreign talent. I urge the Government to increase its current support to businesses, especially SMEs. More importantly, I would like all the employers to seriously take advantage of Government grants and schemes that we have already put in place, together on the tripartite platforms, to improve productivity, enhance the training of locals and support the Progressive Wage and Singaporean-Core programme initiated by the NTUC to bring better jobs to Singaporeans.
Madam, in terms of supporting the projected growth in population, it is heartening to know that the Government has committed to resolve the current strain on infrastructure and will ensure a \"buffer\" that will comfortably
Page: 105
accommodate a growing nation.
I would like to also emphasise that these infrastructure boosts should not be just physical. It is essential that we also improve the social safety net in Singapore and boost support to organisations such as all our Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs). For example, the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) has been having to do more with less, as, over the years, donations have decreased while demand rises. Ironically, the changes in subsidy policies mean more patients now qualify for full subsidies – a good thing for them, but an added financial demand on NKF. So, it is important for us to note that in Singapore, today, for example, about 750 Singaporeans are diagnosed with end-stage kidney failure every year. With these added demands and more patients, the organisation is seeing an increasing operating deficit and rising shortfalls. I would urge the Government to look into such areas as well even as it seeks to grow the necessary physical infrastructure. The software is more important and the VWOs are our very valuable partners that we must help them to succeed.
In conclusion, we must ensure the benefits of our population policies such as better job opportunities and salaries flow to Singaporeans. I support the push to promote marriage and parenthood to maintain a strong Singapore Core, driving employability of Singaporeans, a well-calibrated and strategic immigration policy, and enhancing physical and social infrastructure to meet present and future needs. Madam, I support the amended Motion.
The Acting Minister for Manpower and Senior Minister of State for National Development (Mr Tan Chuan-Jin): Mdm Speaker, we are all aware of the reactions towards the notion of an increase in our population. Many of you have written to me through Facebook, some on the walls, through emails. Some are shocked because they cannot imagine what life would be like, especially with what they are going through today. Crowded buses, MRT stations, crowded spaces at peak hours. How could we imagine living a life with 6.5 million to 6.9 million people? Members would have seen the creative pictures circulating of double-deck MRTs, foreign workers clinging on for dear life to the crowded buses.
Some are sceptical. Can you not grow the economy at a slower pace? Are there really no alternatives? Some feel anxious because some would feel that life is competitive as it is – how do we deal with the competition when more
Page: 106
people come?
Some have said that, \"I'm going to emigrate, I'm going to go somewhere else.\" Some are angry that foreigners are being brought in instead of looking out for Singaporeans. We are uneasy sometimes when there are too many people whom we are less familiar with. Some feel disappointed – \"What's wrong with this Government? It should be looking out for us instead of pursuing growth at all costs.\" And a number really fall into all the above categories. Many have also asked, \"Why table this now? This is not very politically astute, the ground is perhaps not ready for this, why don't we sort out the present problems?\"
These are all valid and fair concerns. So, why the White Paper and why does this issue need to be addressed?
Our demographics are a reality – we cannot change that. All these things happened in the past. They have serious ramifications for our people and our well-being. That is what is at stake. It is all about Singaporeans and it is all about our collective future. Decisions have to be taken across the board in Government and some things need to be done now. And many of them are inter-connected in many, many different ways.
For example, in my portfolio covering manpower policies, we have to tighten today. How far do we go, how do we manage this? These are critical issues. So, the White Paper is all about looking out for Singaporeans as we move forward to the future. And it is a different stage of life for Singapore. It is a different stage of economic development – and the demographic change is a significant one.
I would like to thank the hon Member Mr Lee Yi Shyan for sharing with us real-life examples of how ageing is unfolding as we speak, and the impact in countries like Japan, China, Taiwan, as well as how populist politics are coming into play and having a real impact on societies and their future. What do we learn from these countries? Of course, context is important – they are not all the same – but there are certain trends.
Ageing populations will result in greater social spending. Healthcare, for example. That is something we envisage will go up. Looking after the elderly. I know that the elderly will live longer, healthier, but at some point we will reach a stage where we do and will become frail. How do we finance this? I know that it is not always very popular. It is not the most aspirational thing to talk about.
Page: 107
But all of us who are responsible, we know we need to deal with the practical issues of governance. How do you finance these things? The costs will go up.
Where will your tax base come from? This will be our children's generation, much smaller than we are today. Will they bear the brunt of that tax burden? And this is not to say that the elderly is a burden – it is our responsibility to look out for Singaporeans as they grow old, but it is also our responsibility to look out for our children, because they will have to bear the consequences of this. That is why it is important to plan long term. It is about ensuring a sustainable and stable Singaporean population.
We talked about TFR, and we totally agree with the Workers' Party that this is critical. We should do all we can and we should not let up. But even with whatever ideas that they may suggest – and we would be quite happy to look at practical ideas – they are looking at 1.3 TFR. What does a 1.3 TFR mean? And even with the 10,000 immigration numbers that they talk about on a yearly basis, by 2030-plus, the Singaporean population will decline. How do we deal with these realities? These are not trivial issues, which is why this White Paper is important and we need to table it.
As I listened to Mr Lee Yi Shyan – and I do urge all of us to read his speech and examples shared – it sounded sad and quite bleak. But then I also quickly realised that it is not so bad, because all the people that left the ageing cities, they were still in their country. But for us, it is a bit different. We will all grow old here, because there is not another place to go to. So, we need to make this work.
We are the next big ageing story. What will be our story be? Actually, our demographics have been scribbled on the wall for some time now. When I was in the SAF, we looked at the demographics, because 18 years ahead of time, you actually know what the size of your SAF will be. There was a massive transformation of the SAF into one with third-generation (3G) capability, because we knew that in order for us to be able to defend ourselves, we needed to change the way we operate. And we did.
Various agencies and Ministries have been working hard on the issues for a number of years. And it is very clear that they are interconnected, and sometimes pulling in very different directions. For example, we know that as we age, ageing-in-place at home is emotionally probably one of the best options, and probably a more affordable option with the foreign domestic helper to support. But that pulls in the opposite direction because we also want to reduce
Page: 108
the presence of foreign manpower in Singapore. How do you reconcile that? We know that we have an ageing population, we need to restructure. So, what exactly does that mean? What shape and form of growth? It is not just the numbers, indeed, it is about the quality of growth. What should that shape look like to ensure that we have good quality, sustainable growth to provide for our people?
We need to increase productivity. We all agree on that with a smaller labour force. But, yet, we need to improve TFR, we need to give time for couples to be on their own, work-life balance is important. Again, tensions, but this is real life. It is important to have a White Paper to pull things together so that there is an overarching framework and concept to plan forward. And we will evolve this plan with time. We need to capture the main thoughts and ideas so that the whole-of-Government, as a nation, we have a sense of what that framework ought to be – to guide us.
A big reason why this White Paper is important is because we do not want to repeat the experience that all Singaporeans are going through today – the crowded trains, MRT stations, lack of beds in hospitals. As explained by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, we were scrambling to figure not growth at all costs, but where was growth going to come from in the mid-2000s.
We tried hard, perhaps, overdone it – looking back is always 20/20 hindsight. But with that, what we saw was that the infrastructure did not keep up pace with the population, and there was an impact. The impact is being felt today, and this is something we will and we need to sort out.
Singaporeans have also indicated their desire to slow down, because they feel that pace of growth, because we have crossed a physical and social threshold. We cannot continue as before. We cannot. And we are also at a stage, where from a profile perspective, a different stage of economic development; this is where we need to change in terms of the direction we are going.
The White Paper is very much a product of this desire to get it right and to chart the course for the next lap. Of course, the White Paper does not capture everything, there are many other issues we are dealing with, but it sets some of the broad parameters that will guide us. There are two fundamental shifts, I am not sure whether we picked it up, but there are two fundamental shifts.
Page: 109
First, we will restructure our economy to be productivity-driven and to slow down to a more sustainable pace, which is essentially based on quality. It is not economic growth at all costs. It is about slower steady economic growth for a good cause.
Secondly, we are taking the approach, as highlighted by Minister Lui and Minister Khaw, that we will build ahead of demand. We do not want to be caught out by the infrastructural constraints which are impacting the lives of our people today, everyday. We have been prudent, financially prudent, and we try to be that – and I think that is a strength. But as with all strengths, perhaps when it is overdone, perhaps we could end up with a situation that we have today.
So, what is it that we are trying to do? Economic growth is really just a means to an end, and we all know that. Even in the Workers' Party's proposal, they recognised there is a need for economic growth, so the issue is how much, and what type? So, what exactly do we need? We need an environment which can provide a good quality of life for our people in the future. For our children. For ourselves. Many of us will still be around in 2030. What is this quality of life? We all have many different definitions of it, just as how we have different definitions of what makes us happy and give us a sense of fulfilment.
But there are certain basics – we need to provide jobs, a good range of jobs for our people. Essentially, we need to ensure we keep unemployment as low as possible. That is something that I am very particular about because I meet my residents who are out of job. I correspond with some Singaporeans out there and we strike up a friendship – long emails, Facebook messages – about how difficult it is for them to try and find a job, despite linking them up with different agencies.
We have very low unemployment, but behind every digit there is a real person and a real family. It is not something that we take for granted. The job situation that we have today, we should not presume that it will continue as it is. It needs to be worked at.
We need to support our people so that they can stand up for themselves and to provide for their families. And let us provide our people with a wide range of opportunities. You like a faster life? A slower pace of life? You would like Singapore to be a bit like a Perth-type of living environment, or like New York. Well, those cities have options because they are a part of a larger whole. How do we provide that range for our people in Singapore then? Within our
Page: 110
space, let us try to create as much possibilities for our people as possible.
What does it take for us, as former Minister Mah mentioned yesterday, to generate that level of income, to provide for healthcare, education, housing and so on? We still need to generate income to do the things that we need to do. These are not bad things. These are necessities. So, what is it that we need? What is that level of economic growth that helps look after our people?
Conservatively, we assessed that at 3%-4% GDP growth for the rest of this decade should realistically perhaps allow us to transit, establish firm foundation as we restructure, providing some level of buffer and to look forward to the following decade where we think the economic growth will slow down to a steadier but, hopefully, good quality growth at perhaps 2%-3%. But if we are able to achieve our desired outcome with less, it may well open up the possibility for us to tighten up more. There is no reason to fill up that space just because there is a number there. It is not about a number. It is about the level and quality of life. But we need to tread carefully.
The reality is that our economy is not run by dials and levers where we can choose exactly how much unemployment there is, what is the Gini co-efficient, what the wages should be. Unfortunately, it does not operate that way and we know that. So, do we grow when we can, as perhaps we tended to in the past because we do not take growth and opportunities for granted? Or do we take some risks and forgo this growth while trying to establish a more sustainable path? It is quite clear that where there are opportunities, we will have to turn our back on growth. We will have to slow down. The question is, how far do we go? How much do we slow down? Because we could end up overdoing it as well.
We believe that we should halve our overall labour force growth rate to 1%-2% for the rest of this decade and will further halve it to about 1% in the following decade. This is a very sharp drop from our historical average of about 3%-4%. With these adjustments and the accompanying efforts that must continue – including a relentless effort to build up productivity across the board, to restructure our economy in areas which will make sense for us going into the future. We will try to make sure that we will restructure and position ourselves for a slower, sustainable, but good quality economic growth. And if we can achieve those levels or outcomes for our people, that allows us policy space to look at what kind of growth we can manage with in terms of labour growth.
Page: 111
So, let me stress again that we are not just forgoing present growth. As you know, companies see opportunities because, unlike Europe, unlike North America, we are right smack in the middle of one of the fastest growing regions in the world today with the greatest potential. And we will take a step back. So, we will forgo some of these opportunities and choose to slow down because we cannot just go on just accepting growth as it is. But we need to be careful and we need to be calibrated. And this is not time for us to be gung-ho about it because there are dynamics in play that we do not always have full control over. We are not just an island − we are connected to the world, and we are price-takers.
As Minister Iswaran mentioned earlier, foreign and local business groups have spoken up. Some of their members are moving out of Singapore, if they have not already done so, and some are planning to. And we will expect that to happen.
Our unions are concerned because a slowdown in economic growth could lead to unemployment and stagnation of wages. They have also called for attention to be paid, and we agree, to vulnerable workers to ensure that they too can have better jobs, better pay and lead better lives. And what we have found is that when the economy was growing in the second half of the last decade, that was when incomes for lower-wage workers improved. But that growth also came with a cost in terms of infrastructural and social constraints. So, where is that balance? And that is really the challenge at hand.
Let us be measured and not throw the baby out with the bath water. Because businesses and jobs could move out of Singapore and this is where I would urge that we should be careful about demonising MNCs, demonising business in favour of workers, it is not about a class war between the owners, the capitalists and the proletarian. Because these businesses are owned by Singaporeans as well. SMEs, these are salt-of-the-Earth Singaporeans, who built up their businesses, provide employment for Singaporeans. Companies provide jobs for our people. I am both pro-worker and pro-business but, above all, I think we need to be pro-Singaporean and pro-Singapore. So, the companies are here, they provide direct jobs, and when they are here they also provide a whole network of jobs for Singaporeans. And that allows our economy to grow and generate income, provide for our people opportunities.
When companies go, it is not trivial. We can boldly be very heroic, tell the people, \"Let's bite the bullet.\" Well, I think sometimes if you bite too hard, the bullet will kill you. An environment, with a possible option of zero foreign manpower growth, will kill off a lot of companies. And what happens at that
Page: 112
stage? Like I said, we live and operate in a region of fast growth. Relativity matters because people are deciding – these are not just MNCs, they are Singaporean companies − where should I be? Should I be here in Singapore? Should I be in Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Mumbai, Chengdu − where there is access to labour and fast-growing opportunities?
We have a lot of advantages, and when one goes, another goes, the network unravels, sectors can shift, good white collared jobs can shift, whole sectors, accounting, HR, can be outsourced to another city. So, growth and economy are important. We need to make sure that we maintain enough so that we can provide for our people. And we will have to transit very carefully − this entails labour growth of 1% to 2% for this decade and 1% thereafter, as it will give us that level of flexibility, because recessions will happen. When? I do not know. But it will happen. Cycles are becoming shorter. Perhaps, let me set aside a bit of time to look at the Workers' Party's proposal.
Mr Low had categorically rejected the White Paper and offered various options. The Workers' Party's proposal is actually very attractive. Look at the number – the headline number – just under six million. Let us scale downwards. Economic growth targets are also there. They actually overlap with some of the White Paper's projections. And let us work backwards to see what exactly does it take to achieve that number. It is an exciting narrative because we are trading off growth for a smaller population to focus on the quality of life for Singaporeans.
There are three pillars to the Workers' Party's vision. It is anchored on a manpower policy, of which is also related to labour force participation rate and TFR. Foreign worker growth is zero. As Minister Iswaran pointed out, what it means, in real terms, is that there will be no, for example, foreign domestic workers up to 2020. When we need construction workers, there will be no additional ones to meet some of the needs.
Yet, we also want more Singaporeans to return to the workforce. We also know that there is increasing need for eldercare. In fact, in our projections, we think that from about 200,000 foreign domestic workers today, it will have to go up to 300,000 by 2030. But we do not calculate the foreign domestic worker in our overall foreign workforce. But the Workers' Party has factored that in, much more robust. So, that means that the space for our economy and social needs are incredibly tight. How do we manage that space, how do we manage that transition?
Page: 113
These are real tradeoffs when we need to translate policies into reality in the real world. It is a shock effect. On paper, it sounds fine, but when you put it into practice, it will hurt Singapore, it will hurt Singaporeans. Now, this is where I am slightly confused because I think Mr Low or the Workers' Party had talked about how the tightening on foreign manpower growth would cause the cost of living to rise sharply on 5 March 2012.
And it was in February last year that they said, \"As policies that attempt to compel SMEs to transform and raise productivity by limiting foreign workers kick in, foreign workers will become crucial to the survival of the companies.\" In fact, during last year's Budget session, Mr Low and we had a long discussion on whether to have differentiated dependency ratios for sectors which are finding it difficult to recruit Singaporeans and to free up the space so they could have access to more foreign workers. My position, and it remains, is that those sectors which find it most difficult are those sectors which actually are demanding and pulling in more foreign workers. So we need to be disciplined and change that. But this position has changed. So it is a bit difficult to reconcile what their next step will be. But clearly, and quite definitively, this seems to be the final position that the Workers' Party is taking. But it is a very alarming one. Actually, I do worry about the economy, I do worry about the businesses and, ultimately, because it has an impact on our people.
Raising the labour force participation rate is also another important pillar that buttresses some of the assumptions of the Workers' Party's model. The other day I was asking about some of the details, and that is because I actually do share his perspective. I think raising the labour force participation rate is very important. However, how do we bring back Singaporeans who are not in the workforce?
Our labour force participation rate is actually one of the highest in the world, in fact higher than many OECD countries. But I think we can do more. The various measures that we have put in place, we will continue to work on it. But labour force participation rate has limits. This is because, as with every country, we know that the labour force participation rates for the older workers, older Singaporeans, will be lower than the younger segment of the workforce. But our workforce is becoming older. There are fewer younger people in the workforce. This means that the labour force participation rate will decrease over time, but we will try as much as we can to improve it. But I think those are the dynamics.
However, the Workers' Party's model, especially in the second decade, envisages keeping resident labour force growth at 1%. This is why I am very
Page: 114
interested to know what these initiatives are because I will be very keen to explore them and to put them in place. Because if that helps, that will also afford us more policy space.
And the last one is on raising the TFR. TFR remains vitally important. But as mentioned earlier, even with the 1.3 TFR that is envisaged by the Workers' Party, 2030 plus, our population will decrease even with the 10,000 immigration that he talked about. So, we need to try, and the truth of the matter is that it is not just cash incentives, and I think we know that. It is a whole range of incentives. It is about work-life balance. It is about institutional changes. Incentives, schemes − we will continue to strengthen them. We know that education is a pressure. It gives Mr Heng Swee Keat no end every week in the Cabinet about how the education system should be, and we realise that actually we all have very different views as well. But education system is something we will work on, amongst a whole slew of various programmes. It is not just about throwing money.
So, if there are useful ideas, we are definitely open to exploring it. But this is where it also gets a bit worrying. I know that Mr Low explained it earlier. But my ears were pricked the other day when fellow Member Mr Pritam Singh talked about using the reserves. Because this is a rainy day, we should boost our productivity effort. I agree that we should really work at productivity effort. We should perhaps put in more money, but this is not that rainy day. We should be careful dealing with our reserves, because when we talk about the ageing population, I think you can see the rainy days that might be ahead. These are built up by fiscal prudence over the years and hard work of our forefathers. I think this is not that day yet, but I agree that we need to pay attention to productivity.
And ideas, bold, out of the box. I think Mr Pritam Singh suggested that all of us should have 8-hour days, all of us should be paid overtime. It is bold, it is out of the box, but I am not sure whether this is something that will happen in real life. Which is why my colleague, Mr Vikram, mentioned the other day about how we run the Town Council. I think it is not being facetious, it is about how would we translate this into the real world, and in real terms. Every single person in the town council, professional or otherwise, should be entitled to such schemes. Ideally, I would say this: I am a big champion, I believe we work for too many hours. And I do want us to work fewer hours, and to strike that balance. Legislation – I am not sure if it is a solution to everything, but we will look at some of these, and we do welcome ideas from both sides of the House and from all Singaporeans. And I do want us to move off that charts. I think we are
Page: 115
on the wrong end of the charts.
So, these are some of the ideas that underpin what the Workers' Party proposes. And I think the details are important. We are not looking at detailed concept plans, but, conceptually, how do we realise it. I think that you will find that there are commonalities. But how do we actually realise those kinds of numbers? I am not sure if it actually works, and I think the cost is considerable.
So, we will transit, and this is where we need to plan not for the theoretical best, but I think we need to anticipate the unknowns. We need to anticipate what if things do not quite work out. Let us have a buffer. But let me say this: if we are able to achieve the desired outcomes, without having to embark on those kinds of numbers, I will be quite happy to be quite far away from the 6.9 million figure. But those parameters are important because we do not want to end up with the problems that we have today.
Singaporeans are concerned with the future, because what are we going to do? What are my children going to do when there are all these foreigners in our midst? Are they going to take away jobs? So, let me reassure all of us here that we will continue to ensure that jobs are created to meet the aspirations of our children, of our young. As part of this framework, there will be a level of labour force growth, foreign manpower to augment industries, to augment areas where we need them, especially at the lower skilled ends, where increasingly we will find lesser Singaporeans there. But we will also make sure that we develop the opportunities for locals to move up that ladder to form the core of the workforce.
We have undergone continuous economic transformation since the 1960s, and at each stage we want to make sure there are higher value-added jobs, opportunities for our Singaporeans, and to ensure that our people are able to take up these jobs. Ms Low Yen Ling mentioned briefly yesterday that EDB has been running the Strategic Attachment and Training Programme since 2007 where we co-fund overseas training of Singaporeans to equip them with the necessary skills and expertise to take on higher value jobs in new growth areas.
Minister Iswaran shared about the biomedical science industry − one industry that developed and created good jobs for people. Let me share one short story.
Ms Grace Yow, she is Executive Vice-President of Fluidigm Singapore, a pioneer in microfluidic technology used in biomedical research. Grace
Page: 116
graduated from Singapore Polytechnic with a diploma in Electrical Engineering. She began her career as an engineering assistant in the semiconductor industry and worked her way up before transiting to the life sciences industry in 2005. Since then, she has held directorships within Fluidigm before assuming her current Executive Vice-President role, overseeing manufacturing operations for the company globally.
These are opportunities that we have created over the years and these are the opportunities that we aim to continue to create for our Singaporeans going forward. So, we will intensify these efforts.
In the financial sector, we are making concerted efforts. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has put in place programmes and initiatives to develop a strong Singaporean core. This includes efforts to raise competencies of Singaporeans in areas where perhaps we may not have that much competency in areas such as Compliance, Corporate Banking and Wealth Management. We will grow that and create those jobs for our people. MAS will also provide more scholarships to enable early-career Singaporeans to develop specialist tracks in areas like quantitative finance, risk management, actuarial science and specialty insurance. These are done with the support of financial institutions and programmes to nurture Singaporeans for leadership roles.
I understand that we are all naturally concerned about competition. But competition is there, whether we like it or not. Just because an individual from the Philippines, Vietnam or China is not here does not mean that he is not competing with us. They are competing with us in their hometowns. As I mentioned earlier, in some sectors, good quality, white-collar, PME jobs for Singaporeans like accounting and HR – some of these have left Singapore. When the whole department leaves, there are jobs that were there for Singaporeans that are now somewhere else. All the associated services, supporting these departments, get affected. Those are Singaporeans in that whole chain of things.
Do we prefer to try and have some of these investments and some of these people here to augment, complement and supplement, so that at the same time, on a net basis, generate good jobs for our people? Or do we take a much more protectionist and seemingly nationalistic position?
We will restructure. We will take a comprehensive approach to make sure that our people continue to have good education and facilities for continuing education and training. This is accompanied by adaptive foreign manpower
Page: 117
policies from time to time.
MOE has already announced that the cohort participation rate will increase from 27% to 40% by 2020 with six Universities offering full-time degree programmes. We will continue to invest in the Continuing Education and Training (CET) system. As part of these efforts, we will invest $2.5 billion over the next five years to enhance our CET system.
We understand the manpower constraint especially for SMEs. But do send workers for training to upgrade so that we can become more productive and effective. We urge businesses to take a long-term view. CET is our strength. But we will also strengthen employment matching, such as Caliberlink and working with SMEs, in terms of job placements. These will be continued and strengthened.
Importantly, we will continue to calibrate our foreign manpower policies to raise quality and slow inflows. Employment Pass (EP) numbers have fallen in 2012 for the first time since 2003. I am not sure whether I am able to definitively say that this will be the trend, but I think the EP framework's adjustments that we have put in place are taking effect. And our EP criteria will be a moving bar and the pay threshold will move up. I am watching this because as I look at the entry-level pay for our polytechnic graduates, these are things we can shape and influence.
But even as we tighten, we will continue to provide every support for businesses to transit to a much more productivity-led growth and a productivity-based structure.
What about the remaining one-third? We must not neglect the rest of the one-third of our people who may not be PMETs. So, what do we do? There will be non-PMET jobs but perhaps some of them will be slightly different from today. Education profiles will change and improve, so we will move up the value-chain, and we will continue to emphasise on training. WIS and WTS will be strengthened to make sure that training opportunities are available for people to upgrade. Another story – Mr Spencer Ong joined GlaxoSmithKline as an Operator with GCE \"O\" levels in 1994. He obtained his NTC Grade 2 from the ITE in June 2000. He was subsequently promoted to be Production Superintendent in 2006 and then Senior Operations Executive in 2012. So, we will continue to make sure that such stories continue for our people.
Page: 118
I have received a lot of feedback from constituents, from the public at large, and many Members here who share their concerns about employment discrimination. And that is why they have also expressed concerns about growing the foreign workforce here. Let me be quite clear about this – there is no place for employment discrimination in Singapore. The Government has and will continue to uphold fair employment for all Singaporeans. So, we are going to continue to look after Singaporeans even as competition becomes more keen; we care about whether Singaporeans are experiencing discrimination in the job market.
MOM has and will investigate cases of employers who are believed to have resorted to unfair employment or recruitment practices, such as those who post discriminatory job advertisements or who recruit their own kind regardless of merit, as our esteemed Member, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, mentioned the other day about the entire village coming over to Singapore.
Singaporeans who believe they have been discriminated against at the workplace should raise their case with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices (TAFEP). Employers who are unresponsive to TAFEP or persistently fail to improve their employment practices will be referred to my Ministry. Employers who refuse to heed MOM's advice, or recalcitrant, will have their work pass privileges curtailed.
Let me be clear. We are putting in place safeguards against irresponsible employers and irresponsible practices. We are not erecting barriers to foreign employment because it remains part of our landscape. This will go a long way to assuage the concerns that we have – and these are valid concerns, perceived or otherwise. We know pockets of this happen and it cannot be accepted.
Let me acknowledge some of the points raised by Members here about the issue of getting elderly and back-to-work women to rejoin the workforce. I agree we should explore all ways and means. I think we are beginning to see some shift – not enough, but I think we will as we tighten the manpower policies, change the business practices. We have put in place incentives to help companies adjust and companies are taking this route. Special Employment Credit, particularly, I think goes a very long way for the elderly. And also vulnerable groups who are keen to be employed, people with disabilities, our fellow Singaporeans from the Yellow Ribbon Project.
All of us care about Work-Life Balance and Flexible Work Arrangements. I think we need to continue to work hard at this and figure out how best to
Page: 119
enhance support for companies to introduce more flexible work arrangements. Is legislation the way to go? I think we can look at that and how practical that can be. I think more details will be announced at Budget, but we will press on and we welcome all suggestions.
Let me touch on towards the end about the Singaporean Core, and what it is. All of us, I think in many ways, are tribal in nature. And in some ways, I feel that this anxiety, and this strong response by Singaporeans, in a way, is a reflection of a growing strong sense of identity – which is a good thing. But as with all good things overdone, you can become nationalistic; xenophobic if you are not careful. I do not think we are there. Singaporeans are not that kind of people.
Foreign manpower is transient. They will not grow old here. Their numbers will expand or contract depending on how we see the situations evolve over time. We will manage the manpower downwards – reducing 1%-2% as mentioned earlier; and 1% thereafter in the next decade. Growth means we will no longer rely on just cheap foreign workers. We have to see how to forgo such growth and change.
Mdm Speaker: Order. Mr Lim Swee Say.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Time Limit for Minister Tan Chuan-Jin's Speech","subTitle":"Suspension of Standing Orders","sectionType":"OS","content":"The Minister, Prime Minister's Office (Mr Lim Swee Say): Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin's speech.
Mdm Speaker: I give my consent. Does the Minister have the general assent of the hon Members present to so move?
[(proc text) Hon Members indicated assent. (proc text)]
Page: 120
[(proc text) With the consent of Mdm Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to. (proc text)]
[(proc text) Resolved, \"That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(8) in respect of Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin's speech.\" – [Mr Lim Swee Say]. (proc text)]
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: So, we will manage the manpower downstream, and we need to strike a balance. I do believe that as we restructure, as we evolve and build a better future for ourselves and our people, we will have a Singapore that we can be proud of. A place where our Singaporeans can find jobs, good jobs, opportunities to pursue different avenues for them to achieve their own dreams. And they can find the fulfilment here.
I would want to end by saying this: The present infrastructural crunch, we will ease it. We will deal with it decisively. The number of initiatives has been informed. We will take bold initiatives to ensure this. And at the same time, I think we recognise that we will slow down the economy to a sustainable rate. But we need to tread carefully.
We will manage our space better and I think we can build something special here. Our heart and soul remain important. It is not just the material. I think this is something recognised by all Singaporeans and all Members here in this House. We need to nurture it – activities in school, community outreach, the arts, heritage, the environment. These things cannot be neglected even as we discuss the practical aspects of governance; the practical aspects that impact our future. The very heart and soul of our nation rest on some of these things, our values.
This is where it is important to address this idea of the Singaporean Core. My colleagues from the Workers' Party define this Singaporean core with a very catchy, Singaporean Singapore slogan. It is meaningful, but the sub-text is actually very important. I quote Ms Sylvia Lim, \"A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who grew up in and with Singapore. Therefore, the policy of topping up shortfalls in our total fertility rate with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean core is flawed.\" At various
\tPage: 121
junctures, they talk of dilution of our citizen numbers – home-grown, home-born Singaporeans – with the numbers that are coming in forming new citizens, and this idea is repeated.
I guess this is one way of looking at it and I suppose it resonates with some Singaporeans – which is why it was raised. I honestly do not know how far back we should go before Singaporeans count? Even here in this House, some of us are not born in Singapore. Ms Irene Ng was not born in Singapore. Mr Chen Show Mao was not born in Singapore. Does it make them second-class citizens?
We have many Singaporeans who are not born here. They may not have grown up here, but they have decided to make this place home, and serve and contribute to our society. Should this be what defines us as Singaporeans? And this is an important question. Are these values we as Singaporeans subscribe to?
I do not subscribe to these values and outlook to what it means to be a Singaporean. I believe we Singaporeans are an open hearted and kind people. We are generous. We are warm. We embrace those that are around us. Those who leave here, leave as friends and will look out for us because they remember the friendships forged. They were touched by the kindness of our people when they were here in various capacities. Some will choose to live here because they see that this is something they want to be part of.
As leaders, we cannot be just echo chambers. We lead and set the tone and inspire ourselves and our people to be Singaporeans with a heart. When you ask who do we defend? This is my response. I defend my family who remains here. I defend my loved ones and friends who remain here, and all Singaporeans who are here. The percentage does not make a difference, my duties and responsibilities do not change.
Taking too nationalistic an approach can and sometimes does bring out the worse in us. We are much more than this as a people. So, let me end with this quote:
\"As a Singaporean I have no difficulty, in a single lifetime, forgetting in turn that I was a Ceylon Tamil and Sri Lankan though I was born there. I had no difficulty forgetting that I was a British subject, or the formative years as a Malayan and where most of my kith and kin still are. That I and my colleagues fought bitterly the communists and communalists on both sides of the Causeway to be a Malaysian and am now totally happy that I will die, I hope, a
\tPage: 122
satisfied Singaporean. Being a Singaporean is not a matter of ancestry. It is conviction and choice ... Being a Singaporean means forgetting all that stands in the way of one's Singaporean commitment, but without in any way diminishing one's curiosity about the triumphs and failures of one's distant ancestors.\"
This was written by the person who coined the term \"Singaporean Singapore\", S Rajaratnam.
Friends, we talk about the Singaporean Core. I think this is what it means, and this is the core of being a Singaporean. For all our imperfections, we are a remarkable little nation. We have defied the odds, and have built up something special that we all care for. For all of us here, this is our home and this is where our heart is. I for one do not intend for us to be a footnote in the annals of history. I have hope that our next chapter will see us all grow old together, here, as one people, and to be young again, as one nation. With that, Mdm Speaker, I would like to support the amended Motion. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Low.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Madam. First of all, I am afraid the Acting Minister has quoted my speech out of context. It was in the context of, at that point in time, the effect of foreign workers allocation and a different method of allocating foreign manpower. It is different from the issue overall of foreign workforce. I have said many times in this House that we need to control the foreign worker inflow. I have even questioned the foreign worker's levy. I have also said that the foreign worker has depressed Singaporean wages and also taken away Singaporean jobs. I do not see any contradiction. Fairness is an important quality of being a Minister and I expect him to look at, in totality, what I have said in Parliament, and not just quote part of it and out of context, and try to paint a picture of me as though I am self-contradictory. It is not a contradiction.
Madam, the Minister also referred to the Workers' Party's proposal and also in particular about growing the residential population. After a long speech, I thought the message from the Minister was that nothing can be done. And if something needs to be done, can the Workers' Party do something about it? He mentioned about a programme he has: asking seniors to go back to workforce
\tPage: 123
and all that; and whether or not we have any other programmes.
I would advise that, perhaps, the Minister wants to go back and look at his programmes. If he thinks that it is not effective, set a hard target, the numbers and the KPIs. And if he thinks that his Ministry cannot do very much, and wants the Workers' Party to do more, perhaps he can consider putting his Ministry's resources under the Workers' Party?
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, two quick responses. With regard to what Mr Low Thia Khiang has said, it is a matter of record. My concern was really the different positions taken. The whole debate about DRC (Dependency Ratio Ceiling) was important, because it is about freeing up space when we have more foreign workers coming in. At that stage, Mr Low's concern, and I think a fair concern, was about our SMEs and businesses being affected. But that actually runs contrary to the overall trend of trying to constrain and move our foreign workforce downwards.
Secondly, with regard to the Labour Force Participation Rate, not at all. I am fully committed in terms of raising Labour Force Participation Rate. I would urge Mr Low and his colleagues to read some of the initiatives, and these initiatives are not just on paper. We do have a very high Labour Force Participation Rate and it is increasing and it is improving. What I am highlighting is: there are also challenges and we continue to emphasise and we hope that Labour Force Participation Rate can continue to improve, but that is different from saying that there are no more ideas. We will continue to work on that and I think that is important.
If there are other ideas, we welcome them. I think that is an important point of clarification because what I have been asking is, I am curious as to some of the very practical suggestions. Because we have talked about TFR being half-hearted, apart from eight-hour workday, what are the other things? A lot of things are being put in place. So, we would also appreciate it if there are concrete ideas accompanying some of these broader statements.
Page: 124
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Extension of a Sitting","subTitle":"In Parliament","sectionType":"OS","content":"\tMdm Speaker: Order. Pursuant to Standing Order No 2(5)(d), I propose to extend the time of this day's sitting beyond the moment of interruption for a period of up to 30 minutes to facilitate the completion of business.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]
Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, the death toll for the tsunami that struck Aceh was estimated to be at least 300,000 and the death toll for the tsunami that hit Japan was 18,000. Although both tsunamis were similar in size, the death toll was much lower for Japan. Why is this so? It is because the Japanese had a good tsunami warning system and they had made preparations for it.
Madam, two tsunamis are upon us now. We are facing a silver tsunami. We are facing significant demographic changes and challenges in our population as stated in the White Paper. These are facts that we cannot run away from, and this White Paper served as a tsunami warning. We can choose to ignore it or we can choose to prepare for it. I think all Singaporeans, including both sides of the House, would agree that we cannot ignore this and we have to make preparation. The difference is how do we prepare: the White Paper or the alternate Workers' Party's proposal?
It is the aspiration of all Singaporean parents, including myself and many in this House, to see their children do better than them. In the 1960s and 1970s, only 10% of each cohort gets the chance to reach tertiary education. Today, we have reached 60% of each cohort. By 2030 we expect 80%. Everyone hopes their children can become a professional, manager or an executive. And this is indeed the case. We do have more polytechnics and universities now than before. We have to work hard to transform our economy to one that can provide good, fulfilling jobs for the increasing PMETs proportion. If majorities are
\tPage: 125
PMETs, who are the workers or staff that they will be working with? The answer is quite simple. It must be the non-Singaporeans among us. In this respect, I think we all also can agree that the only difference between the White Paper and the alternative plan proposed by the Workers' Party is the number of foreign workers that we are having.
The Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Mr Yee has put it nicely as: \"There are two taps pouring into a sink. One tap is local; the other tap is foreign workers.\" Their alternative proposal is to switch off the foreign tap immediately. Upon hearing the business chambers' critical comments on their proposal, they immediately changed tack to say that: \"If the local tap is dry, we will turn on the foreign tap so the sink will never be dry, do not worry.\" This shifting position of the Workers' Party is not new. I am sorry.
Let me just quote Mr Low on his position on foreign workers tightening – whether to tighten or not – and this is quoted from the Budget debate on 29 February 2012. I quote, \"However, we also know that we have limited population and we need foreign workers to fill up the gap in our domestic labour market. It is not easy to strike a balance between the two.\" Sounds like a statement from the Minister in fact.
When pressed a little bit more, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam did ask the Member whether the Member meant that the industry which he feels has low productivity should basically get more foreign workers. This is what Mr Low said, I quote, \"What I mean is that we tighten it slowly rather than tighten it at one go.\" I repeat, \"What I mean is that we tighten it slowly rather than tighten it at one go.\" And I quote again, Mr Low said, \"My concern is that the push you are making now by setting a target for dependency ratio and tightening it and in the process what will happen to the SMEs? Many of them may not be able to make it and there will be a lot of fall out. I am also concerned with the speed of tightening. Yes, there are low productivity industries. You want to push it up but at the same time you cannot do it suddenly because eventually we will end up with high cost of living.\" This sounds like a page from Ms Sim Ann's speech just now.
And I quote again, Mr Low said that, \"An abrupt forced transformation of certain industries such as cleaning and construction industries could result in a rapid rise in cost and eventually end up with consumers paying higher prices.\" This sounds very similar but, of course, today's position is very different.
Page: 126
The alternative proposal states that there will be zero foreign workers growth from today till 2020. And, of course, NCMP Mr Gerald Giam says that he does not think that there is anything wrong with having zero foreign workforce growth in the next eight years. And just to quote Mr Pritam Singh, he just said in the House as well, referring to the construction industry: \"They will have to make do with what they have and Singaporeans must accept a slower pace of construction as a result, which means they have to wait longer for their BTO flats.\"
On the issue of the pace of restructuring, let me quote Mr Low from his Budget speech on 29 February last year, \"We all hope we can raise workers' income, the faster the better because the cost of living has been increasing. However, it will be a long arduous journey to restructure the economy and increase productivity. And I urge the Government to be cautious in economic restructuring process.\" And today's position is let us immediately restructure it; let us change immediately.
On PR policy, this is what Mr Low said last year, \"In addition, the Government should also learn their lesson and not to be too lax in their approving Permanent Residence application as the practice of being overly relaxed in granting PR status to foreigners in the past few years has also added pressure to Singaporeans in finding jobs. This is because Permanent Residents do not need to apply for work permit and are not restricted by Government's limit on foreign workers. The number of applications for approved for permanent residents has decreased from 79,000 in year 2008 to 29,000 in 2010. Looking at the current situation, I think the Government should limit the number of approval for PR application to 30,000 a year.\" I repeat this, \"I think the Government should limit the number of approval for PR application to 30,000 a year.\" Has the Workers' Party changed its position now and they want to reduce it from 30,000 now to 10,000?
This shifting position is not new. In fact, this issue of cheap foreign is not new in this Chamber. I and a few Members over the last few years have brought this up time and time again in this House during Budget debate. I had warned that the dangerous addiction of cheap foreign labour that may have numbed our enterprises into complacency and lowered productivity growth. I have proposed two options in the past. One is a gradual reduction on this dependency on foreign workers which is what the White Paper is proposing. The other is cold turkey treatment which will also be effective but many enterprises may not survive the cold turkey treatment and many Singaporeans will lose their jobs.
Page: 127
And this is the alternative proposal by Workers' Party. Is this really a tenable suggestion? It can be quite unworkable and will finish off our SMEs. Having said that, the alternative proposal may be worth considering. I would like to call upon our Workers' Party colleagues to walk the talk; to implement what they proposed in their constituency. They should consider: can they freeze all foreign workers headcount for all contractors serving their constituencies now, and get more elderly and women to take up the jobs there?
Singapore has already the third highest older worker participation rate in the world. I am not sure what other concrete suggestions the Workers' Party has to increase this further? Can Aljunied Town Council try this? I also hope they can implement what they proposed for the benefit and welfare of the workers in their Town Council, that is: strictly eight hours workday with mandatory OT (Over Time) payment for any overtime including working at home; and two weeks of child bonding leave that can be taken anytime in addition to the Government proposal of one week paternity leave; and on behalf of their Town Council staff, let me thank the Workers' Party in advance for their implementation.
Madam, however, I would like to share and echo some concerns which are already reverberating loudly in the public, both in the coffee shop and cyberspace. Perhaps both the Government and the Workers' Party can enlighten us.
What is the truly sustainable population that our 700-plus sq km island can support? What is the sustainable demographic structure; that is, what is the proportion of children, adults and elderly? What is next after the 5.9 million that Workers' Party has proposed? And what is next after the 6.9 million that PAP has proposed? Will the population still be growing or will it be at a steady state? In this sustainable population steady state, we all still want to be pollution-free with good clean air, clean water, and thriving ecosystems in our green spaces that preserve our fauna and flora and also a thriving vibrant economy that provides good jobs. I think both the White Paper and the alternative plan did not put any figures.
Infrastructure development must lead the population growth and not lag behind. I know we have a very prudent Government that makes sure public spending is sound. With the current traffic congestions and high property prices due to a mismatch in demand and supply, many are apprehensive of any further increase that will aggravate the current situation. I welcome the Government's pledge in the White Paper to build infrastructure ahead of demand. I do not think Workers' Party and our Nominated Members of Parliament will object,
\tPage: 128
with the exception of Nominated Member Ms Faizah Jamal, as long as proper environmental impact studies are done before development. As a show of commitment to the Government's pledge, perhaps the Government can build the swimming pool, stadium and hawker centre in Sembawang town ahead of population growth. The residents of Sembawang town have been waiting patiently for the past 12 years for these facilities. On behalf of residents, let me thank the Government in advance.
If the figures given by the White Paper and the alternative Workers' Party's proposal are only a guide to infrastructure development, then I would rather opt for a higher figure so that the Government can build and cater more facilities for all of us. Between building facilities to cater for 5.9 million population or 6.9 million population, I think the public choice is quite clear. I would rather go for more rather than less.
The third point I would like to make is, who are the PRs and new citizens we are bringing in? They must be here to complement and not to compete with existing Singaporeans. The White Paper quoted a figure of 15,000 PRs and the Workers' Party's alternative plan is 10,000 PRs. May I ask both sides what are the criteria that both sides will use to decide who gets the PR? The current PR population is about half a million and the White Paper's projection is also about half a million by 2030. There is no real increase. The Workers' Party's proposal of lowering PR annual intake will result in many foreign spouses of Singaporeans remaining as foreigners and dashing their hope to be PRs or citizens.
What will happen to our HDB heartland? The proposed population projection in the White Paper will result in a 55% Singaporean core and 45% non-Singaporean working population. What is the percentage of core Singaporean in the alternative proposal by the Workers' Party? Where do we house the 45% non-Singaporeans? Currently, we have 1.2 million residential units with 900,000 as HDB. I understand 700,000 residential units will be added. If we maintain our current 75%-80% residential units as public housing and if 20% out of the 55% stays in private estates due to good economic prospects as proposed by the White Paper, then the remaining 35% will stay with the 45% non-Singaporeans in our heartlands. Will we reach a situation where there are more non-Singaporeans staying in the heartland? I think the housing and transportation of these 45% transient foreign workers need a review and rethink. Nothing in the White Paper or the Workers' Party's alternative proposal mentioned about them.
Page: 129
I spoke of two tsunamis at the beginning of my speech. I mentioned the silver tsunami. The next tsunami that may come earlier than the silver tsunami is the political tsunami. The shifting of our political tectonic plates is faster than most had anticipated. I am happy to hear that the Workers' Party has come out with an alternative plan which the public expects of the Opposition, too. As an elected Member of Parliament, it is also my duty to hold the Opposition accountable and make the Opposition work hard, so as not to let down the public. I must say that your alternative plan is actually very similar to the White Paper except for some tweaking of the figures to make the public happy and sway the public's emotions. It is a populist move, aimed at buying the hearts of the voters but may not be beneficial for the country in the long run.
The last GE and the two by-election results are a loud and clear warning of this political tsunami to come. Some members of the public told me that the rising tide of anti-PAP sentiments is unstoppable and has passed the point of no return. I asked why? This was their reply, \"Even if the Government can deliver what was promised, Opposition will claim credit for them and the call for more Opposition will even be louder. If there is no improvement, Opposition will go to the rally to say that the Government has failed to deliver. Therefore, also call for more Opposition in the Parliament. Either way, Opposition will win\".
It has been predicted by some that, one day, the PAP will cede control to govern. After the last tsunami warning, I am beginning to believe that day will come sooner rather than later. Shortly after this White Paper was released, the feedback I received from friends was, \"This is a suicide paper for the PAP as it will fan more anti-PAP sentiments\". When the alternative plan was released by the WP, the feedback I received from friends was, \"The alternative plan will kill the economy and this is euthanasia for Singapore\".
Between suicide for the PAP verses euthanasia for the country. Let me borrow a new phrase I learnt recently in this Chamber. To be \"intellectually honest\", my choice is clear. I support the White Paper. [Applause.]
Mdm Speaker: Mr Low Thia Khiang.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Thank you, Madam. I think the Member's comment and criticism of the Workers' Party's plan is nothing new. Many of the speakers before him spoke about it. He also mentioned what I said in Parliament, some of which Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has addressed. I have explained that these are
\tPage: 130
things that are quoted within the context of dependency ratio, re-allocation of foreign manpower within the industry and within the Singapore context. There is no contradiction.
But he did mention that I said we can approve up to 30,000 Permanent Residents (PRs). Yes, I did mention that. That is in the context of approving PR from holders of work passes. The \"30,000\" number does not actually increase the population size. We are not talking about direct approval of PR from the new applications.
As for the 10,000 figure he mentioned, we were referring to 10,000 citizens. Citizens usually come from the PR pool, which are already a part of the population. So, it does not increase the total population size. There is no contradiction in what I said in Parliament and what we are now proposing in Parliament on the population policy.
He also mentioned about the Population Paper and about how the voters will vote in the future. He gives me the impression that he takes Singaporean voters as idiots, as though they cannot distinguish and simply listen to what we have to say at the rallies. I would advise him that perhaps he should not think that Singaporean voters are idiots. Singaporean voters are very sophisticated. They know how to discern what is right and what is wrong, and they will make their informed and independent decision. They will not be swayed by the PAP's —
Mdm Speaker: Clarification, Mr Low, not a speech, please.
Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, okay.
Mdm Speaker: Dr Lim.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Mdm Speaker, I will quote once again. Perhaps the Member needs to turn up his hearing aid [Interruption]. This is what you said about the PR policy, I quote, \"I think the Government should limit the number of approval for Permanent Residents applications to 30,000 a year.\" This was about approval for PRs, not talking about Work Permit or anything else. You are just saying that it was inclusive of Work Permit and everything else, so, it is not. It is just about PR alone.
Page: 131
Of course, what Mr Low has alluded to, I do not think he should use the word \"idiot\" in this particular Chamber. Singaporeans are smart – we all respect Singaporeans. I am very sure Singaporeans will make a very decisive choice, a very informed choice, after reading through both proposals. They will certainly not be taken in by just a rally speech.
Mdm Speaker: Order, order. I do urge Members to address your speeches to the Chair, the Speaker.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, my apologies. If I may, there was a table that I prepared that was meant to be distributed during my speech. If I may have your permission to distribute that table, please?
Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. You may distribute the table. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.] Ms Ellen Lee.
Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang): Mdm Speaker, to Singaporeans who take pride in their country being admired by many for its modern and green environment, meritocracy, multi-racial society and hardworking citizens, this White Paper is bold and reassuring. I agree with what the Paper says – that we should act to make the future of our children and grandchildren secure. More importantly, I agree with the spirit of the Paper which, to me, is the essence of what it means to be Singaporean.
First, it is the spirit of looking at challenges boldly in the eye, not pretending there exist any easy options, not fearing that what lies ahead may be a very long and tough journey. The White Paper is the result of many people thinking about and trying to overcome a very serious problem which we have, a problem happening in 2030 which I remember first hearing in the 1980s after I just graduated. Simply put, Singapore is ageing fast and we know that fast-ageing societies, notably Japan, find it hard to grow and provide opportunities for their young citizens. So, we want to start thinking now how not to be hit by the same sad situation, which my learned colleague, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, called a tsunami.
We owe it to our children, grandchildren and future generations. But telling it straight like this has elicited responses, such as \"the aged are seen as a burden to society\", \"there exist less unpalatable measures than having lots of foreign workers\", \"the Government has given up asking people to marry and have children\". All these are not true at all. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo has
\tPage: 132
repeatedly assured Singaporeans, the White Paper is a roadmap to the future for all Singaporeans, the aged included. As for foreign workers, as explained in the White Paper, we need them to do the less skilled work because more Singaporeans will upskill and take on PMET and higher jobs. Lastly, the Government is stepping up efforts to help Singaporeans marry and have children, not slowing down.
The question is, should the Government not have said anything on the matter? To me, there is no question of leaving the White Paper alone till people show signs of receiving it well. It is an urgent matter and we cannot wait. This is the spirit of looking at a challenge in the eye and tackling it with all the Government can think of in consultation with the public.
Second, it is the spirit of optimism based on realistic judgement. The word I want to stress here is \"realistic\". To be realistic is to be aware and be able to accept things as they are, not as we wish them to be. To be realistic is to be practical and not deal with what is abstract or what seems ideal. Some views I know of may be summarised as such: \"it will be better to persuade Singaporeans to take on jobs which they are now unwilling to do rather than hire foreigners to do them. We can get them to take up these jobs if we make it worth their while to do so.\"
The assumptions made here are not realistic to my mind. There have been many attempts to help Singaporeans who are not in the workforce to find employment, with limited success, for various reasons. We all see these at our MPS. Employers would often say it is difficult to find workers. To assume that the suggested idea will work is to show a lack of awareness of the stark reality.
We need to look to foreign labour to help us meet our employment needs and achieve the growth that we want. It is an ideal situation to have all the jobs in Singapore filled by locals.
The prospect of less crowded roads or trains may be an attractive one, but without foreign workers, more – not fewer or less – businesses will have to cease operations. If you ask employers to pay more for their workers and they say business costs are too high, the business will move elsewhere. In short, we have to be realistic. The Government will calibrate the foreign labour required and there is no doubt that a realistic mindset will serve Singapore better, as it has always been until recently.
Page: 133
Most people would agree that it is hard for any affluent society to maintain a high standard of living if there are few young people and lots of old people. At the personal level, a young family with members all working will live more comfortably than a family of two childless retirees. You do not have to be an expert to see this. Why then do Singaporeans baulk at the thought of more foreign labour needed, more young people targeted?
A likely cause is a keenly-felt sense, especially among less well-off senior citizens, that with the rising cost of living each year, the aged cannot afford to be sick in Singapore and before long they will be marginalised. More effort should be put into assuring Singaporeans that while it is true, costs will go up particularly when there is economic growth, things will become more expensive in the years to come, we can, on our part, prepare for the future. Perhaps we can find positive stories to share, of how senior citizens deal with worries about life after retirement, and what keeps them going. Our senior citizens and Singaporeans approaching retirement must feel that they belong here in Singapore, that ours is an inclusive society and that they matter. One good way would be to provide support to help senior citizens achieve their dreams. For instance, if a 56-year-old worker at a hospital wants to be a staff nurse and plans to first take the Normal Maths exam followed by the \"O\" level Maths exam, the employer – with the Government's help – should give her the support she needs so she can realise her dream and retire at the level she wants. Other senior citizens who share similar dreams will feel encouraged if all employers have the same mindset and, gradually, this lifelong learning culture will set in and become a distinctive part of our society.
Yet another reason for the initial reservations expressed could be the refusal of some of our people to accept that, as a small nation state with no natural resources or hinterland to count on, our options are not as many as we might have wished for. We simply have to focus on our people, their brain power and their willingness to work hard and be creative.
A caller, responding to a question on the new Marriage and Parenthood Package on a TV show, expressed his concern that if Singaporeans are given too many subsidies, they would lose the incentive to continue working hard. Indeed, working hard and, more importantly, working smart, have helped us to stay ahead in the global competition for growth opportunities. We have to communicate clearly that seizing growth opportunities is not what Singapore's future is about. It is about building a happy home for ourselves. Many arguments about how the Government cares only about making money missed the point that growth makes it possible for us to pay for a nicely renovated flat, wholesome and delicious food on our tables, good books and enrichment
\tPage: 134
classes for our children, good caregivers for our aged parents, grandparents and so on. Money is not the goal, using money wisely to make life better for ourselves and our family is the goal. The logic is straightforward but many Singaporeans failed to appreciate the Government's approach to seizing growth opportunities because there are those who pretend there exist better options which other countries have and trumpet them while ignoring the crucial differences, such as we are uniquely small and without any natural resources to help us in a fiercely competitive world.
The next point I would like to raise is the extent to which teenagers and young adults identify with the future presented in the White Paper. The White Paper is their paper and perhaps this should be underlined for them – the future is theirs to shape, to preserve so that, in turn, their children would do the same, too. A simplified White Paper would make a good Youth Day present for all youths to read and appreciate what the country has done for them. Being better informed than youths a generation ago, it may be asked why they should believe what has been proposed would happen.
The reply to this is simply that the Government's track record in finding a way out of a tough situation speaks for itself. Think how our NEWater has solved the problem of our having to buy lots of raw water overseas. Think SARS which no one knew much about when it first appeared here except that it could kill you. Picture for yourself what the future will look like and get involved in the envisioning process. Another question would be: so what if we do not care about what happens? Think of places like Italy where graduates leave the country in despair to seek their future elsewhere. Think how Japan has to borrow money to take care of its huge number of very old citizens. Enough of thinking, now act. I suggest we ask schools to discuss the White Paper during Character and Citizenship Education class to gather their students' thoughts and feelings, too. Give them a taste of what it means to plan for the future, about which nothing is certain. In short, let us engage our youths, invite them to share their views, for we have begun on a massive project to create the best home for ourselves, together. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.
(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Parents hold high hopes for their children, especially in this fast-changing era where we are facing global competitions. Expectations from the parents are even higher nowadays. Parents pinch and scrape, look for the best school, best teachers, best CCAs, so that children can optimise their potential, acquire a skill and finally stand out. In short, parents put their children's future at the forefront, so do grandparents. I will do the same for my grandchildren. Every one of us must
\tPage: 135
seriously ponder what we must do to ensure our children's future.
Facing the challenge posed by a rapidly ageing population, can we still just remain status quo? Can we ignore the impact on economic growth by the ageing population simply because we want to avoid traffic congestion and the feeling of \"is this the Singapore I am familiar with?\" brought about by the influx of foreign workers? Look what happened to Japan; we cannot make a choice that is detrimental to the next generation. Refusing to import foreign labour to supplement the shortfall will not be workable; many companies will close down or leave Singapore due to manpower shortage. Singaporeans, in turn, will lose their jobs. Our children, like many University graduates in Europe, will leave Singapore and seek work elsewhere simply because the Government cannot guarantee a job after their graduation. They live and work alone in a foreign land, much to the pain of their parents.
I believe the proposals in the White Paper are to safeguard Singaporeans' and their children's interests, and to ensure a correct path to the future. We can solve the problem of inadequate infrastructure; we have the faith and the ability. I hope Singaporeans can give the Government time and have faith in the White Paper. We can give our children a bright future and shape them into the pillars of the nation to continue Singapore's stability and prosperity.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, Dr Lim Wee Kiak.
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: Mdm Speaker, in the heat of a very passionate debate, I have made some very insensitive remarks about Mr Low Thia Khiang. I would like to express my sincere apology to the hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang for my comments on his hearing aid during the speech. [Applause.]
Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, I have a clarification for the Acting Minister for Manpower. During his speech, he made a reference about between now and 2020, that MOM's estimates are that there is a requirement for another 100,000 foreign domestic workers to look after the elderly. Can I just confirm whether that is the correct estimation? And if it is, I would like to know why these estimations are not included in the White Paper and additional estimations which would have been helpful for Singaporeans to try and understand what sort of future we are looking at? I did mention in my speech that the White Paper is very, very thin on detail and this is exactly that sort of detail that I think would have been very useful for Singaporeans to
\tPage: 136
actually look at and consider.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, if I may clarify. I think what I referred to is really at 2030, the projections that we think, by that stage, addressing the elderly issues. We think that the present foreign domestic worker numbers are about 200,000. It will rise to about 300,000 by then. So, that is in excess, not between now and 2020.
Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Acting Minister for that clarification but I think my initial point still remains that the White Paper could have put all these information out very clearly, in particular, estimates that the Government has, but are not included in the White Paper. We have Members like Mr Lim who expect an alternative proposal. But a lot of these information, if it is not in the hands of the common man, how are these proposals going to come to the fore? So, it is important when the Government raises a White Paper that this information be provided in the White Paper itself.
Mdm Speaker : Deputy Prime Minister Teo.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mdm Speaker, I would like to clarify that these figures were actually put out in the National Population and Talent Division's occasional paper several months ago.
Mr Pritam Singh: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that reply. I think then all that had to be done was to have included that paper as an annex also, and all the other information which is relevant to the White Paper so that everybody can see it holistically. This is a long-time grievance that many Singaporeans have raised about Government policies – it is all over the place.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Pritam Singh, what is the point of clarification here?
Mr Pritam Singh: My point of clarification is just that, in future, it will be helpful if all these information has been put together.
Mdm Speaker: The points of clarification must relate to the speech made by the Member. So, please be reminded of that. Points of clarification are not meant as the opportunity for a debate or as a speech for Members to make. Yes, Mr Singh?
Page: 137
Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, I will take that into account. Thank you very much for your indulgence.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal Sapari.
Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, it is said that it is far better to foresee even without clarity than not to foresee at all. History shared that it was not raining when Prophet Noah decided to build the ark. We are discussing about a future which no one knows with certainty will hold true. It is, however, important that we do not let our present day challenges to drive out the need to plan. Planning is about bringing the future into the present so that we can act on it now.
We have heard in this House over the past few days alternative projections on labour force, GDP and population growth. Unfortunately, to the many Singaporean low-wage workers who are facing stagnating wages, coupled with rising inflation, it means nothing to them. I was driving into Parliament this morning when I asked the armed security officer about his wages. He shared with me that his income has not increased for the past seven years despite having worked in his present job for 12 years. I have also come across many workers working under outsourced contracts lamenting their wages have not increased for many years. I believe there are thousands out there facing a similar situation.
Mdm Speaker, I am truly saddened at the plight of our Singaporean low-wage workers. Without doubt, there are many social assistance schemes and other forms of financial support provided to them, but we cannot raise a person's dignity through hand-outs. I believe many of them want to raise their own families through their own blood, sweat and tears.
Mdm Speaker, the Singapore narrative for the low-wage workers must change for the better as we plan for 2030. The time to take class-based affirmative action is now. NTUC has embarked on many initiatives to help low-wage workers earn better wages through productivity improvements, skills upgrading and promoting better business practices. Even the recent 212 NWC recommendations made a bold move in recommending a quantum pay increase for low-wage workers.
Page: 138
The reality, however, is that many companies show much resistance to adopt such national initiatives to help the low-wage workers, citing cost and competition. Let me share a real case study involving one of our premier tertiary institutions. Last year, when NTUC learnt that they had a cleaning contract up for renewal, NTUC engaged them early to share on the progressive wage model, hoping that they would be amongst the first mover in helping the cleaners earn better wages. I personally attended the meeting. Despite sharing with the institution in advance, they, however, concluded their recent cleaning contract without insisting that the service providers adopt the progressive wage model, citing that official announcement of the progressive wage model was not made. If they had, the cleaners would have obtained better wages based on their skills and job nature. How many local cleaners were affected? I am not sure, but behind each of these cleaners is a family that most likely will find it difficult to cope with the rising cost of living.
I have many more cases to share, but when a premier academic institution of higher learning shows resistance to efforts to help low-wage workers, I am worried what the situation would be like for the low-wage workers in the year 2030.
Madam, to change the narrative for our low-wage workers, what we need now is for the Government to be more aggressive in its measures to improve the wages of Singaporean low-wage workers. Without doubt, the Government has instituted a range of measures, like the Inclusive Growth Programme, Workfare Training Scheme and Workfare Income Supplement, targeted at raising the salaries of low-wage Singaporean workers sustainably over the longer term. The Government must continue to improve on these narratives.
The Government has taken the right step to award its cleaning contract only to companies that have been awarded the Clean Mark under the new cleaning accreditation scheme and who have agreed to adopt the Progressive Wage Model for their workers. This requirement has the potential to impact 7,000 local cleaners working under Government contract but we still have another 50,000 local cleaners out there working and not earning wages as recommended by the Tripartite Cluster for Cleaners. Cleaners are not the only group of low-wage workers.
According to MHA, there are 65,679 unarmed and 6,408 armed private security guards licensed by the police as of July 2012, but only about 36,000 are actively working as guards, as reported by The Straits Times in September last year. It is estimated that Government agencies engaged a total of approximately 1,200 security officers and 1,800 armed Police officers. While there has been
\tPage: 139
much progress to raise their productivity and wages, the security industry is in a vicious cycle characterised by long working hours, low basic salary and, for some, even stagnating wages. I would like to urge the Government Ministries to work with the unions and industry players to help these security officers. Let us work on the Progressive Wage Model using our police officers in MHA to benchmark their salaries. This is a good narrative that will be welcomed by many security officers out there.
Mdm Speaker, there are many Singaporeans earning low wages in many other industries, such as retail, F&B, landscape and others. Many Singaporean low-wage workers are vulnerable because of the business practice of outsourcing. Competition amongst service providers inadvertently leads to cost-cutting and this manifests itself in the form of low salaries for their workers. To make matters worse, contractual obligations spanning a few years at fixed contract price means that the salary of these low-wage workers will stagnate. Many Singaporean low-wage workers are working for companies who are successful because they are operating based on a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment.
Last month, a resident came to see me during my Meet-the-People session. She has been working with the Postal Service for the last 17 years as a postwoman and earning about $1,700 per month. She shared that, this year, her employer changed her terms of remuneration to $1,062 per month for the same amount of work. NTUC is following up with this case but, if it is true, then this is an example of companies operating based on a low-wage, low-benefit model of employment. We must change this narrative now if we want the Singaporean low wage workers to believe in the vision we have for 2030.
Mdm Speaker, some have opined that one of the best ways to help low-wage workers get better wages is to get them to be union members. This, however, is not necessarily true. While unions can ensure they are accorded their statutory benefits according to the Employment Act, it is a challenge to negotiate for better wages if the workers are working under an outsourced contract with their salaries largely determined by what the company is getting from the Service Buyers.
Recently, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) made a call to the Government to reverse the policy of tightening the inflow of lower skilled foreign workers. The Singapore Retailers Association (SRA) said that the retail sector was finding it extremely difficult to hire Singaporeans and urged the Government to rethink its labour policy. The Singapore Business Federation echoed similar views. Government has given subsidies for them to restructure
\tPage: 140
and improve their productivity but we know it is not easy. It takes time. I can understand why they want the policy to be reversed. Madam, I am concerned, if we were to reverse the policy, about the impact it will have on our low-wage and older workers whose wages may be stagnant due to cheaper foreign competition.
The demand for low-wage workers will continue even up to 2030. What can we do now to convince the Singaporean low-wage workers that the future will be better, come 2030?
Mdm Speaker, to improve the narrative for our local low-wage workers as we prepare for \"a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore\", or \"a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore\" as the Workers' Party prefers to call it, we must act now to value every work and every worker. In NTUC, we coined this term \"Cheap is no good; good is not cheap\". Regardless of what we call the White Paper, it is said that \"all the flowers of all the tomorrows are in the seeds of today\". Let us plant the right seeds for the Singaporean low-wage workers now in order for them to enjoy the blooming flowers in the year 2030.
For a start, I would like to call on the Government to make it mandatory now for all companies to adopt NWC's recommendations, specifically to those pertaining to low-wage workers. We must be bold to reduce the rising income gap by taking more affirmative action plans to help our local low-wage workers.
Second, as there is quite a large number of low-wage workers, I would like to call upon the Government to recognise industry-wide agreements incorporating the Progressive Wage Model, especially for those industries dominated by low-wage workers, such as in cleaning, security, retail, landscape and F&B, to ensure fair and good employment terms and conditions for these workers. This agreement can be reached through national industry-wide collective bargaining, between employers' associations like SNEF, ASME or SBF with NTUC or industrial unions. This agreement would be binding on all service providers and service buyers in the industry.
Third, I would like to urge the Government to review the Employment Act to make it more favourable to low-wage workers, given the changing employment environment. While the unions can negotiate for better employment terms and conditions through our collective agreements, there are many Singaporean low-wage workers that are not union members or working for unionised companies.
Page: 141
Even within the Government sector, there are 2,931 Division IV officers, and 73% of them are earning gross salaries of between $1,001 and $1,400 per month, and another 16% were drawing monthly salaries above this level. Can the Government Ministries and Statutory Boards be bold enough to have higher performance bonus rates for this group of officers? Can the Government also consider making service buyers responsible for the employment terms and conditions of the outsourced workers working under the service buyers' contract? This would encourage more responsible outsourcing by service buyers.
Mdm Speaker, it is said that a society or a nation is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; the last, the least, the littlest. What we can do in the future is judged by what we can do now.
Madam, please allow me to speak in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The White Paper on the issue of Singapore's population increase by 2030 has led to a heated discussion among Singaporeans, with many of them worried about the implications if Singapore's population reaches 6.9 million. However, this issue is important because Singapore's future may be affected if nothing is done. This is due to Singapore's very low fertility rate and the increase in the number of senior citizens.
Madam, among the issues of concern to the Malay community is the ethnic proportion, as mentioned by Mr Faisal Manap and Ms Intan Azura. Many among our community are worried that the percentage of Malays in Singapore will decrease due to immigration policies relating to the entry of new Singapore citizens from countries like China, India and the Philippines. If we compare this with the 1970s, the percentage of Malays in Singapore has decreased from 15% in 1977 to about 13.4% presently.
Although our Prime Minister and the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, have said that the ethnic balance will not be affected and will be maintained, this issue is still a matter of concern to our community. How can this balance be maintained if more non-Malay new citizens are going to be accepted in the coming years? May I know if efforts to attract Malay PMETs from other countries are being done? And are these efforts effective? If they are not effective, how will the percentage of Malays be maintained?
Page: 142
Madam, there are those who said that citizens from the Philippines who will be accepted as Singapore citizens will be categorised as \"Malays\" because, historically, they are considered to have the same roots as Malays. Is this true? If it is true, this will mean that even though the percentage is maintained, the identity and the meaning of the label \"Malay\" will change, because many Filipinos are Catholics and, culturally, there are not many similarities with our Malays.
Some also have the perception that due to the lack of Malay foreigners who wish to reside in Singapore, the Government has taken new citizens who are Muslims, even though they are not Malays. Statistically, will these new citizens who are Muslims be considered as Malays? I should think not.
Mdm Speaker: Mr Zainal, you may want to round up your speech now.
Mr Zainal Sapari: Mdm Speaker, please allow me to conclude in English and allow me to share a posting on my wall by a well-respected friend, \"Perhaps, the way forward is to let people see the full picture, give the worst case, the best case and the ideal scenario of the population problem. Give the consequences of each option in not only GDP growth, but also consequences in social, transportation, childcare, education and etc.\" We still have time. While I support the Motion, I hope that the Government will address the concerns and allay the worries of Singaporeans on the various issues and convince Singaporeans that we have them always at heart.
Mdm Speaker: Yes, Minister Tan.
Mr Tan Chuan-Jin: Mdm Speaker, I wish to make a point of clarification. The hon Member Mr Pritam Singh made a big issue of the lack of details in the White Paper, in particular, with reference to the number of foreign domestic workers that we might need in the future. If I may draw the House's attention to the White Paper, on page 40, under the subsection, \"Complementing the Singaporean Core with a Foreign Workforce\", chapter 3.2.3, we talked about more foreign workers will also be needed to build housing, transport and other key infrastructure and to do conservancy and maintenance work; footnote 11, where we project that by 2030, 250,000 to 300,000 work permit holders will be needed in construction, and so on, and then 28,000 foreigners in healthcare and 300,000 as foreign domestic workers. More details can be found in NPTD's occasional paper. I would like to add that, perhaps, it would be useful to actually read the Paper and the details before commenting.
Page: 143
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment of Debate","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"Mdm Speaker: Order. It is now 7.30 pm. The time extended for this Sitting has expired. Debate to be resumed what day?
The Leader of the House (Dr Ng Eng Hen): Madam, tomorrow at 12.30 pm.
Mdm Speaker: So be it.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Adjournment","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"OS","content":"[(proc text) Resolved, \"That Parliament do now adjourn.\" – [Dr Ng Eng Hen]. (proc text)]
Adjourned accordingly at 7.31 pm.
\tPage: 144
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Installation of Lightings at Walkway Bridge Across Kallang River Connecting St Andrews Village and Potong Pasir","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"1 Mr Sitoh Yih Pin asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider installing lightings at the walkway bridge across the Kallang River that connects St Andrews Village and Potong Pasir HDB flats.
Mr Khaw Boon Wan: The footbridge is maintained by the LTA on behalf of the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). If the Potong Pasir Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) wishes to install lightings on the footbridge, it may tap on the CIPC budget allocated to it. The CCC may appoint the LTA as its implementing agent.
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":null,"footNoteQuestions":null,"questionNo":null},{"startPgNo":0,"endPgNo":0,"title":"Schools Offering and Annual Cohorts Taking Full Literature at \"O\" And \"N(A)\" Levels","subTitle":null,"sectionType":"WA","content":"2 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Education from 1992 to 2012 (a) what are the yearly number and proportion of schools that offer Full Literature at Upper Secondary level as an \"O\" level and \"N(A)\" level subject; (b) what are the yearly number of students and percentage of the annual cohort take Full Literature at \"O\" level and \"N(A)\" level; (c) what are the annual performance results for Full Literature at \"O\" level and \"N(A)\" level; and (d) whether there is a correlation between the take-up rates for Full Literature and overall English language performance in schools over the past 20 years.
Mr Heng Swee Keat: Literature is a compulsory subject for all students at the lower secondary levels. At the upper secondary levels, before 2001, \"O\" level students could offer one or two of the following Humanities subjects: Literature, History and Geography. From 20011, all upper secondary students offered a Combined Humanities subject comprising a Social Studies component and one of the following Electives: Literature, Geography or History. Students could also offer Literature, Geography or History as a second Full Humanities subject.
\tPage: 145
The candidature for Literature at \"O\" level in 1992 was 16,970 (47.9% of the Secondary 4 cohort). Over the next 10 years, the candidature decreased to 7,322 (21.8% of the cohort) in 2001. The \"N(A)\" candidature also decreased from 3,383 (26.5% of the Secondary 4 cohort) to 428 (4.2% of the cohort) in 2001.
From 2002 to 2012, the candidature for Full Literature in English at \"O\" and \"N(A)\" levels has been fairly consistent. Each year, there are more than 3,000 (9%) \"O\" level students and more than 200 (2.5%) \"N(A)\" level students for Full Literature. In addition, there are about 3,000 (9%) \"O\" level students and about 400 (3.5%) \"N(A)\" level students for Elective Literature.
The number of schools offering Full Literature at \"O\" level has been fairly stable between 2002 and 2012. In 2012, 77 schools (50% of the total number of schools with \"O\" level course) offer the subject at \"O\" level and 13 schools (10% of the total number of schools with \"N(A)\" course) offer it at \"N(A)\" level.
Students' performance in Literature in English at \"O\" and \"N\" level has been consistent over the years, with passes at about 90% and distinction rates of over 30%. In 2012, for example, 95.8% of the \"O\" Level Full Literature candidates and 91.8% of the Elective Literature candidates passed the subject and the distinction rates were 40.8% and 34.0% respectively. For the \"N(A)\" level Full Literature, the pass rate was 90% and distinction rate was 38.1%.
As both students' performance in English Language and the candidature for Literature have not varied significantly, it is not possible to infer any correlation between the take-up rates for Literature and English Language performance in schools.
To promote Literature, MOE organises regularly sharing sessions on the teaching of Literature and a biennial Literature Seminar for teachers. A special interest group has been set up for Literature teachers to share ideas and resources. MOE also reviews and revises the Literature syllabus to make the subject accessible to and interesting for students.
\tPage: 146
","clarificationText":null,"clarificationTitle":null,"clarificationSubTitle":null,"reportType":null,"questionCount":null,"footNotes":["1 : The first year of examination for Combined Humanities and the second Full Humanities subject was in 2002."],"footNoteQuestions":["2"],"questionNo":"2"}],"writtenAnswersVOList":[],"writtenAnsNAVOList":[],"annexureList":[],"vernacularList":[{"vernacularID":3301,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Dr Chia Shi-Lu","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Chi Shilu White Paper 7Feb 2013 _Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Chi Shilu White Paper 7Feb 2013 _Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3302,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Low Thia Khiang White Paper 7 Feb 13 _chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Low Thia Khiang White Paper 7 Feb 13 _chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3303,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lim Swee Say","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Lim Swee Say White Paper 7 Feb 2013(P1)_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Lim Swee Say White Paper 7 Feb 2013(P1)_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3304,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Lim Swee Say","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Lim Swee Say White Paper 7 Feb 2013(P2)_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Lim Swee Say White Paper 7 Feb 2013(P2)_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3305,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr R Dhinakaran","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Dhinakaran take 8 7 FebinTamil(revised).pdf","fileName":"New Template - Dhinakaran take 8 7 FebinTamil(revised).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3306,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Sim Ann White Paper 7 Feb 2013_Chinese(edited).pdf","fileName":"New Template - Sim Ann White Paper 7 Feb 2013_Chinese(edited).pdf"},{"vernacularID":3307,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Low Thia Khiang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - LTK response to Sim Ann 7 Feb 13(short convi)_Chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - LTK response to Sim Ann 7 Feb 13(short convi)_Chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3308,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Sim Ann","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Sim Ann 7Feb2013-Response to LTK wo track changes.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Sim Ann 7Feb2013-Response to LTK wo track changes.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3309,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Yeo Guat Kwang","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Yeo Guat Kwang White Paper 7 Feb 2013_chinese_amended.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Yeo Guat Kwang White Paper 7 Feb 2013_chinese_amended.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3310,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Ms Ellen Lee","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Template - Ellen Lee White Paper 7Feb2014_chinese.pdf","fileName":"New Template - Ellen Lee White Paper 7Feb2014_chinese.pdf"},{"vernacularID":3311,"sittingDate":null,"vernacularTitle":"Vernacular Speech by Mr Zainal Sapari","filePath":"d:/apps/reports/solr_files/20130207/vernacular-New Tempate - 7 Feb _ Mr Zainal Sapari on Population White Paper.pdf","fileName":"New Tempate - 7 Feb _ Mr Zainal Sapari on Population White Paper.pdf"}],"onlinePDFFileName":""}