Speech on Population White Paper

Madam Speaker,

There has been a lot of media attention on what the 2030 population numbers in this white paper represent – is it a target? is it a projection? or, quote-unquote, a ‘worst case scenario’? Yes, the Minister has taken great pains to explain that the white paper is very much an exercise in infrastructure planning for Singapore.

But make no mistake. The 6.5 to 6.9 million population figure range for 2030 is a planning target set by the government. Subjected to the economic situation in the next 15 or so years, but a target nevertheless. The Minister has given us his justifications for this target set.

As such, the Singapore People’s Party opposes the recommendations of the white paper.

We are also deeply disappointed at the white paper which, as one public policy academic pointed out, did not even contain a References section to show what research the writers of the paper had done, or the methodology employed. In fact, the only citations we found in this white paper prepared by the National Population and Talent Division, were 7 of their own papers and briefs. Talk about cyclical reasoning.

The white paper raises more questions than it seeks to answer.

If one of the main pillars of the white paper is to maintain a strong and stable Singaporean core, since we are told that the current Total Fertility Rate puts that under threat, then why is it necessary for the non-citizen population to keep growing? Is it so that we will have a bigger pool of foreigners to audition to become Singaporeans?

Is the non-citizen population expected to grow after 2030? Or stagnate at the 2030 level? If it stagnates, what will happen to economic growth, as this government’s model would dictate?

Ten to 20 years is indeed too long a period to make any realistic policy. But the logic underpinning the white paper’s recommendations necessitates a clearer policy direction for Singapore post-2030 to be made now.

Does the government intend to freeze the intake of foreigners in 2030, or at a point when it realises that no new Land Use Plan will work any more?

That is, of course, if this government still expects to be in power in 2030.

Let us take a look at four assumptions used in the white paper:

Firstly,

The Minister has emphatically stated that the government is not going for “Growth At All Cost”. Nevertheless the white paper perpetuates the mindset of dependency on labour. It assumes that there is still a good chance for productivity growth to get better, whereas all the productivity enhancement schemes have not worked.

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

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

Thirdly,

The White Paper is based on a very unique event in human history, namely, that of the Baby Boomers phenomenon. Given that Baby Boomers is a unique event in history and is transient in nature albeit for 10 years or longer. Is it wise to plan for a country’s population and infrastructure based on this event?

Or put otherwise, can we justify bringing in more migrants to support aged Singaporeans, knowing that the new migrants will themselves contribute to the aged population?

Which leads me to the Fourth point;

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

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

I now deal with four points in the white paper we take issue with.

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

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

Secondly,

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

Thirdly,

Chapter 5 of the white paper is ‘A High Quality Living Environent’, which ties in with the government’s idea that the quality of life can still be maintained in 2030. But what we find in that chapter, instead, is a focus on how our public transport system will be expanded, the new MRT lines that will be build, hospitals, and so on.

Madam Speaker, that is not what quality of life entails. These are the very basic infrastructure requirements for the influx of people the government wants to bring in!

I was hoping to see more relevant indicators of the quality of life, such as a survey of satisfaction with life among Singaporeans. But alas, no such measures seem to be used.

Fourth,

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

I now turn to the Land Use Plan, on which I have two questions for the Minister.

Firstly,

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

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

Perhaps I have not understood this correctly. I will certainly appreciate any clarification from the Minister for Defence.

Secondly,

According to Table 1 of the document, there will be only 4 per cent of land left for, quote-unquote, ‘Others’, in 2030. What happens if the population continues to grow after 2030, and if any efforts of the government to curtail that fails?

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

In conclusion,

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

For whom is the white paper? It does not address these concerns of low income Singaporeans.

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

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

SMEs that perform poorly in terms of productivity should not be allowed to be artificially sustained.

The government must make a wise decisions over MNCs threatening to leave Singapore unless supported with foreign workers quotas to their liking.

It is highly regrettable that the government has decided to rush through the debate and approval of such an important plank of national policy.

The government’s programme of the so-called National Conversation has been a P.R. stunt. And there is no better indication of that than in the formulation of this white paper. They tell Singaporeans that they will start listening more to us, but ultimately, they will still tell us they know what’s best.

Madam Speaker, the Singapore People’s Party cannot support this white paper and the accompanying Land Use Plan, and I am voting against the motion.