Big stakes in play for small states

February 4, 2013, 8:11 pm

≫ Next: My Singapore story

≪ Previous: Building culture of respect online

$

0

0

Today, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Tharman Shanmugaratnam arrives in Cambodia for the royal cremation of the late former king Norodom Sihanouk, who passed away last October. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who visited Phnom Penh on Oct 12 last year to pay tribute to the late former king, wrote that Singapore will never forget the crucial role he played in fostering the enduring friendship between the two countries. Asad Latif traces the close ties between Singapore and Cambodia and how the two small states stood by each other in times of need.

The Straits Times, 4 Feb 2013

CAMBODIA'S late former king Norodom Sihanouk, who died last October and will be cremated in Phnom Penh today, was instrumental in forging an extraordinarily close relationship with Singapore.

Just before Singapore's separation from Malaysia in August 1965, there were calls in certain political quarters there for the arrest of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and his close associates.

In response, writes the scholar Michael Leifer, plans were drawn up for the People's Action Party to set up a government-in-exile in Cambodia because of the special relationship that had been established with its head of state, then known as Prince Norodom Sihanouk.

Mr S. Rajaratnam, who was supposed to set up that government, was once asked about those plans. The former foreign minister replied that there had been "such a vague thought which was dissipated by events".

What did not dissipate were the close ties between the two countries. Cambodia was one of the first countries to recognise Singapore's independence.

In his memoirs, Mr Lee remembers Cambodia as "that oasis of peace and prosperity in the war- torn Indochina of the 1960s".

He recalls a visit to Cambodia in 1962: "Phnom Penh was like a French provincial town, quiet and peaceful with wide boulevards reminiscent of the Champs Elysees in Paris lined with trees and flanked by side roads also shaded by trees."

That oasis would soon be destroyed. Prince Sihanouk, who had led his country to independence from France in 1953, was overthrown in a coup in 1970.

True to its foreign policy of neutrality in the Cold War, Cambodia had sided with neither the communists nor the Americans. But this had not prevented it from getting sucked into the Indochina conflict. Turned into a heartrending scene of atrocities, from illegal carpet-bombing by the Americans to mass killings by the Khmer Rouge, Cambodia became a by-word for the horrors of war that culminated in its invasion by Vietnam on Dec 25, 1978.

By working assiduously through Asean, Singapore sought to reverse the Vietnamese occupation. What was at stake went beyond the close ties: It touched on the security of countries, particularly small states such as Cambodia and Singapore.

Speaking at an Asean meeting in Bali in June 1979, Mr Rajaratnam remonstrated with his audience: "Remember, if we don't stand by the people of Kampuchea today, who will stand by us should we have to shout for help ourselves one day?"

From Phnom Penh to Kabul, a document published by Singapore's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1980 focused on the key issue of sovereignty in its analysis of the Cambodian conflict.

Small nations, it argued, should be alarmed by any attempt to condone "the armed overthrow of even a hateful government by a foreign army". This was a reference to the government of Democratic Kampuchea, led by the Khmer Rouge despot Pol Pot, which the Vietnamese had overthrown in what some saw as an act of deliverance for the Cambodians.

Although the Khmer Rouge regime was an odious one, Democratic Kampuchea should keep its seat at the United Nations because it was the legal government of Cambodia, Singapore declared. If this did not happen - or even if the country's UN seat were left vacant - this would legitimise a blatant act of aggression committed by one state against another.

Commenting on the Heng Samrin government that the Vietnamese had installed in Phnom Penh, the document pointed out that in February 1979, it had signed a treaty with Vietnam containing a clause that allowed for Vietnamese troops to be invited in.

Singapore noted the ominous implications of this arrangement: "First invade a country. Then set up a front organisation which will sign a treaty requesting outside armed intervention after the invasion has taken place, and all would be perfectly legal." Obviously, this precedent could not be allowed to stand.

Singapore therefore embarked on a vocal condemnation of Hanoi's designs at the UN and elsewhere. It played a major role in formulating a common Indochina policy for Asean to prevent the situation in Cambodia from becoming irreversible because of international acquiescence or disinterest.

Mr Wong Kan Seng, who was Foreign Minister from 1988 to early 1994, has said that Asean's core objectives throughout the Cambodian crisis were primarily threefold. First, there was a need to prevent the Vietnamese occupation from becoming a fait accompli. Second, it was necessary to persuade Vietnam to come to the negotiating table. Third, there was a need to ensure a peaceful and negotiated settlement which would allow the Cambodian people the right to self-determination and independence.

Against this background, the diplomatic offensive against Vietnam scored a major political success in September 1981 when Prince Sihanouk, Democratic Kampuchea premier Khieu Samphan, and the anti-communist Khmer People's National Liberation Front leader Son Sann met at the Shangri-La Hotel here.

They agreed to set up an ad hoc committee to work towards a coalition government. Established in Kuala Lumpur a year later, the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea prevailed at the UN with Asean's support.

Asean unity itself, though, was far from assured. Thailand, whose borders were threatened by the Vietnamese troops in Cambodia, benefited from the pressure that China kept up on the invaders. Indeed, Beijing's military action against Hanoi in February 1979 helped contain Vietnamese expansionism.

But Indonesia was concerned with ensuring that Vietnam remained strong enough to block a Chinese thrust into South-east Asia. Navigating a way through such positions was not easy, but concentrating on the key factor of Vietnamese aggression helped to keep Asean focused.

The collapse of global communism in 1989 paved the way for the eventual resolution of the Cambodian issue. The Paris Peace Agreements of 1991, which created the framework for a comprehensive political settlement, were signed by Cambodia and 18 other nations in the presence of the UN secretary-general. Singapore's doggedness in insisting on Cambodia's sovereignty was vindicated when a free Cambodia joined Asean in 1999.

Singapore had repaid its debt of gratitude to the country which had been quick to embrace its independence. In the process, Singapore's diplomacy came of age as its officers learnt to deal with major powers and work with international institutions such as the UN and the Non-Aligned Movement.

Mr Mark Hong was Singapore's charge d'affaires in Cambodia from 1974 to 1975, when his tour of duty was cut short by the capture of the capital by Khmer Rouge forces.

"It is clear that with the passing of King Father Sihanouk, a new era has dawned," the retired diplomat told The Straits Times.

The "working relationship" between Cambodia and Singapore today is a cordial one which, in the Asean spirit, is based on consultations, cooperation and mutual respect.

This relationship will no doubt shape their interactions as South- east Asia once again becomes a theatre of change.

The writer, a former Straits Times journalist, is an associate fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

---

My Singapore story

February 4, 2013, 8:17 pm

≫ Next: Many want citizenship because of their children

≪ Previous: Big stakes in play for small states

$

0

0

Why I became a citizen after living here for more than a dozen years

By Radha Basu The Sunday Times, 3 Feb 2013

It was a tough phone call.

One evening early last year, I rang my mother in India to tell her that my family and I were applying for Singapore citizenship.

By then, we had lived here for more than a dozen years.

"You can't do that," she spluttered, shock echoing over the phone. "We raised you to serve your country. We thought you would return."

She reminded me how my late father would have liked me to come home and join politics or the country's vibrant civil society to fight for justice and equality just as some of his relatives had done at the height of the Indian freedom struggle. I was reared on their stories of service and sacrifice.

Now it was my turn to be shocked - hearing long-forgotten parental expectations crackling through a long-distance line. But those were their dreams, not mine.

"I can't Ma," I protested weakly. "This is home now."

Born in Kolkata, a symbol of poverty the world over, I was raised by my parents to believe that education and wealth should be used not just for personal gain, but to craft positive change in the world around us.

They led by example, juggling jobs with volunteerism and tireless charity work, which my mother continues till today.

I grew up, went to the city's oldest college which had produced Nobel laureates and Oscar winners alike, and had a rich history of students who went on to combat social injustice.

On graduation, I moved to Mumbai, studied journalism, fell in love, got a job with the city's largest newspaper - and married even before my husband had completed his postgraduate studies.

It was the mid-1990s and a key part of my work involved covering a judicial commission of inquiry into the Hindu-Muslim riots that had paralysed the city between December 1992 and January 1993 .

Day after day, I sat in a crammed courtroom hearing survivors speak of loved ones - many of them women and children - raped and murdered because of their faith. At least 900 people had died, nearly two-thirds of them Muslim.

By the time the commission presented its findings in the late 1990s, the far-right party accused of inciting anti-Muslim hatred had swept into power with its pro-Hindu nationalist rhetoric.

This new government rejected the findings - some of which indicted its own party members. Murder cases were closed even before they went to court. There were whispers of a cover-up. Justice was not served.

As someone who had witnessed the riots and listened to victims, I was in shock.

Disillusioned by the far-right political currents sweeping the country at the time, my husband and I sought to carve out our destiny overseas. We weren't sure if the move would be permanent. But at that point, we just could not stay.

My husband, a graduate of one of India's top engineering colleges and a newly minted MBA degree holder, soon found jobs in the United States and Singapore.

We wanted our new home to be diverse and secular, where education, drive and hard work - rather than personal connections - would be passports to success. Both countries fit the bill but we had close friends and family in the US.

"You'll suffocate in Singapore," my best and oldest friend, who had settled in Boston, wrote to me in an e-mail I have preserved till today. "Come, instead, to the Land of the Free."

We didn't. What tipped the scale in favour of Singapore is ironic, given the fertility crisis gripping this nation today. I was a new mother and thought this Little Red Dot was an easier and safer place than America to raise a child.

Indeed, Singapore still ranks higher than most developed Western nations, including the US, in the latest list of best places to be born in, released recently by the Economist Intelligence Unit.

In our early years, we fell deeply in love with our adopted home, a gentler, kinder, far less crowded city than what it has grown into today.

We struck up easy friendships with Singaporeans. It was neighbours like the Queks and the Chins who helped us settle in. Our children played together. We celebrated Chinese New Year and Deepavali together.

We marvelled at the meritocracy, the rigorous work ethic and the social mobility. And as someone who had witnessed communal riots and spoken to victims who got no justice, I was enamoured of the racial and religious harmony here.

We became permanent residents and had our second child. I found fulfilment both as a mother and in my work as a journalist.

Perhaps because of where I had come from, I was drawn to write about underdogs in Singapore society: the elderly poor, low-income workers, the disabled and the mentally ill, single mothers and foreign workers. I won awards for my work, in Singapore and overseas.

More importantly, as I watched social policies evolve, and heard successive National Day Rallies, I believed that life was improving here with every passing day.

Then, things began to change. To combat an ageing population and flagging fertility rates, the Government began aggressively importing immigrants, spawning an "Us and Them" divide that, sadly, seems to be widening every day.

Singaporeans, most of whom descended from immigrants themselves, protested against being crowded out, and accused foreigners of a host of ills, from stealing jobs to cramming trains and pushing up property prices.

Some friends, both foreign and Singaporean, left, unwilling to face the growing stress, costs and crowds. Instead of rethinking our future, my husband and I did just the opposite.

We applied for and, a few months later, were granted citizenship here.

It's not unbridled material success or the glittering new skyline that made us seal the deal with Singapore. In our early 40s with children already in school, we don't qualify for most of the carrots being dangled by the Government at young PRs to take up citizenship.

So why now? No other place feels quite as much like home. This is our comfort zone. We take pride in the rule of law, in clean, efficient governance. As parents, we savour the safety of a culture free of guns and drugs - and that our teenage daughter can move around unaccompanied here, without worrying for her life or limb.

Above all, at a time when some say Singapore is past its prime, we still have hope. As fresh challenges emerge, we want to have a say in how this nation charts its future course.

Why did we wait so long? Allegiance I think does not grow overnight. Besides, as someone born in a flawed but strong democracy, I believe in the need for diverse, alternative voices in the national discourse. The 2011 elections made some headway in providing just that.

By the time Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong invited citizens to help write the next chapter of the Singapore Story through the National Conversation last year, I was glad I had taken the plunge.

But what of the rather startling announcement last week that by 2030, we may need to make room for many more foreigners on this already crowded island, as the population heads toward 6.9 million? Is the National Conversation over? I hope not.

Even the Prime Minister has said it's a "worst case scenario".

If Singaporeans work together to live up to the pithy and powerful words of our National Pledge - and have more babies - the prospect of 2030 will be far less daunting than it appears today.

As a working mother who has found much joy raising two children, I firmly believe more here should give parenthood a chance.

After all, the future of democracies is determined not just by policy papers but by the collective will of the people. Individuals can indeed shape their own destiny.

As my parents taught me all those years ago, each of us has within us the power to craft positive change. We cannot give up without a try.

Many want citizenship because of their children

February 4, 2013, 8:47 pm

≫ Next: Reaction to Population White Paper

≪ Previous: My Singapore story

$

0

0

Foreign Brides in Singapore

But few are the highly skilled, educated immigrants that Govt wants

By Tessa Wong, The Straits Times, 4 Feb 2013

HER husband and son are Singaporeans so Madam Hyunh Thanh Loan would like to be a citizen too.

The 28-year-old Vietnamese, who has been living in Singapore on a long-term visit pass since she married a Singaporean salesman three years ago, is now thinking of applying for citizenship.

Said the housewife: "Now my life is here with my husband and baby. It will be good if I can become a Singaporean also."

Madam Loan is the face of a growing statistic in Singapore.

Today, some four in 10 marriages are between Singaporeans and non-citizens. This is in contrast to a decade ago, when only two in 10 marriages had such pairings.

Last week, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Grace Fu said immigration policies would "take into consideration this group as potential Singapore citizens".

But she added that the Government would neither encourage nor discourage Singaporeans from marrying foreigners.

She was taking questions on the proposed immigration policy outlined in the Population White Paper released last week, which projected the population growing to 6.9 million by 2030, of which 55 per cent would be citizens.

The paper proposed taking in 15,000 to 25,000 new citizens and 30,000 permanent residents a year.

In 2011, nearly three-quarters of the 8,949 marriages between citizens and non-citizens were between a Singaporean man and a woman from another part of Asia.

Many foreign wives want to become citizens as they have Singaporean children and want to sink their roots here.

The problem, said counsellors and researchers, is that not many of them belong to the category of highly skilled, educated immigrants that the Government hopes to attract.

National Population and Talent Division figures show that these women tend to be aged below 40 and have only secondary school or post-secondary qualifications.

Less than a quarter have university degrees.

Mr Jeremy Khoo, executive director of the Catholic Church's Archdiocesan Commission for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, said many of the foreign wives his group has helped have problems getting permanent residency, let alone citizenship.

"It is quite tough for them, there isn't a sense of stability and security as they have to keep renewing their visit passes," he added.

Some feel that the Government could be more flexible and grant these women citizenship or at least permanent residency.

This would mean that they could qualify for medical and housing subsidies, said Ms Azmeen Moiz, a lawyer and volunteer with Aware who is working on a research paper on foreign wives.

Said migration expert Leong Chan Hoong of the Institute of Policy Studies: "They may not contribute much economically. But they do so socially, by raising and taking care of their children who are Singaporeans."

He added that such foreigners tend to be seen as more assimilated into society.

He conducted a study last year which asked Singaporeans what factors are important in viewing an immigrant as a fellow Singaporean.

Two factors that scored highly were if the foreigners have children who are Singapore citizens, and if their sons do national service.

Still, there is concern over sham marriages, which have been increasing.

There were 12 such cases in the first half of last year, compared to four or five annually in the five years before that.

But advocates pointed out that more safeguards have been put in place, with an amendment to the Immigration Act passed last year that makes it illegal for anyone to engage or assist in a sham marriage.

Convicted offenders face a fine of up to $10,000, or a jail term of up to 10 years, or both.

To weed out such cases, advocates said the Government could give citizenship only to those who have Singaporean children and who have lived in the country for a number of years.

Said Ms Moiz: "It is the right thing to do. These foreign wives have a vested interest in making Singapore their permanent home, as they are birthing a new generation of Singaporean kids."

BRINGING UP DAUGHTER
I want my girl to grow up here, and I want to be with her, make sure she has a good education and a good life. It will be easier to stay with her if I become a citizen.
- Madam Natchita Khuanha, 43, a Thai massage therapist who is married to a Singaporean restaurant assistant manager. They have a three-year-old daughter

IN A DILEMMA
I have spent the majority of my working life here, but feel that people may still never accept me fully as a citizen because I was not born here and never did national service. Should I give up my British citizenship to become someone regarded as a half-citizen in another country?
- Mr Mark Ashworth, 32, a British software designer who is married to a Singaporean researcher. He would take up Singapore citizenship if dual citizenship is allowed

Foreign Grooms in Singapore
Home in Singapore, heart in homeland
By Tessa Wong, The Straits Times, 4 Feb 2013

FRENCH national Samuel Guerville has spent nearly half his life in Singapore and considers it his second home.

The 39-year-old sales director, who is married to a Singaporean and has two children, declares he would be "the first in line" to become a Singaporean - if he could have dual citizenship.

"I am French, my parents are French, why should I erase my history and identity just to get a Singapore passport?" he said.

Unlike their female counterparts, foreign grooms here tend to be in two minds about taking up citizenship. While they consider Singapore as their home, they also have an equally strong sense of identity tied to their country of origin.

Most of them are well-educated, with more than half holding university degrees.

Nearly two-thirds come from Asia. But the proportion of Asian grooms has been shrinking as more Singapore women marry those from places such as Europe, the United States and Australia.

Some are willing to be Singapore citizens if they can have dual citizenship. They also want their children to retain dual citizenship as currently they have to make a choice when they turn 21.

Government leaders have said that Singapore cannot allow dual citizenship for security reasons, as this group would have the option of leaving when there is an emergency here.

But migration expert Leong Chan Hoong pointed out that with more Singaporeans becoming highly skilled and mobile, it is becoming easier to leave in times of crisis even if one does not have dual citizenship.

Sociologist Paulin Straughan said the prospect of a shrinking citizen core, coupled with a growing number of Singaporeans marrying foreigners and having children, should prompt a rethink of policies.

Her suggestion is that the Government should grant dual citizenship based on factors such as the length of time spent in Singapore, and whether the person has a family here. It could also allow children to renew their dual citizenship status every 10 years.

Dr Straughan, who is married to an American and has two sons who have dual citizenship and must decide which citizenship to give up when they turn 21, said:

"How does it make sense to lose a Singaporean child who has grown up here, while giving citizenship to newcomers? We should not be too dogmatic and rigid in the way we perceive the responsibilities of a citizen."

Changing perception on inflow of foreigners

The White Paper issued this week projects a population of up to 6.9 million here by 2030, with citizens making up 55 per cent of all people here. The Government expects to take in 15,000 to 25,000 new citizens and 30,000 permanent residents a year. Dr Leong Chan-Hoong, a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) who was vice-chairman of the 2010 Reach Policy Study Workgroup on integration, speaks to Leonard Lim about the challenges ahead.
The Straits Times, 2 Feb 2013

What are your thoughts on the figures?

It's important to analyse the breakdown more carefully: 1996, that's the first time we crossed the 30,000 mark for new permanent residents (PRs).

For eight, nine years, we had more than 30,000 PRs a year. When we first crossed that threshold, it was said that with so many PRs and immigrants, it would create social disruption and tension, but that didn't happen. It was only in recent years that we see a lot more of that. If you just look at the PR and new citizen component, those figures are sustainable, they are realistic.

However, the other component that needs more in-depth discussion is the number of non-residents. It has steadily increased over the last 15 years, and if you project to 2030, it will go up even higher. In 2000, we had about 750,000 non-residents. In 2010, 1.5 million - it doubled. In 2030, 2.5 million. It will increase from the current 25 per cent to 36 per cent of the total population. But there's very little discussion on this component.

It would be good if policymakers could provide more clarity and detail on these 2.5 million, their profiles, which countries they are from, their skill sets, how do we accommodate them - in dormitories, through the rental market? When we hit the 2.5 million mark in 2030, what will happen next? Will the proportion of non-residents increase beyond 36 per cent? Personally, I am worried if this will dilute the Singaporean core.

Some have expressed similar concerns. Do you see social tensions ahead?

I don't think Singaporeans are xenophobic now. I think they are by and large inclusive. If there's any resentment it's not directed at foreigners, but the foreigner policy.

Forty per cent of all marriages involve someone of a different nationality. At the turn of every corner, you're bound to see a foreigner serving you, in a restaurant, a petrol kiosk or a sales counter. If the relations between Singaporeans and foreigners are really that antagonistic, people will be unhappy from the time they wake up to the time they sleep.

In our research, we find that Singaporeans by and large appreciate foreigners' contributions, but at the same time express concern that some of the foreigners may or may not be committed to Singapore.

What are your thoughts on integration efforts so far? What would you suggest can be done to improve social cohesion?

So far, what we've tried to do is "deficit management". We try to patch up the gaps between locals and foreigners by having more social programmes, activities to bring the two groups together. At one level that is helpful. But at the other end, we probably need to go beyond this and talk about spontaneous shared experiences - things that people do together without planning, and regardless if it involves joy, pain, or anxiety.

Grassroots integration carnivals and activities can bring people from different nationalities and races together, but these are very controlled, artificial environments. It's important that the social interactions be done in a more day-to-day and casual fashion.

It is also important that we don't target certain groups - immigrants from certain countries - as it becomes very contrived. Say, for a Chinese New Year gathering for everyone in the block, invite everyone. Don't spell it out in black and white that this is for integration.

Second, currently, children of expatriates or PRs can now study in local international schools. They will not have common shared experiences from socialising with Singaporean kids in the national schools. They will not get the opportunities to mingle with heartlanders.

Is it possible to make it mandatory for second-generation PRs, that if they want to be PRs, they have to go through mainstream schools, as opposed to allowing them to enrol in international schools?

Third, national service. There's the perception that this is an inequitable policy which is biased in favour of foreigners. For second-generation PRs, they have the option of giving up permanent residency before enlistment, there's an escape clause. For Singaporeans, there's no option out.

Also, can the Government do less in all this? A lot of the integration now is driven from the top down. Can we decentralise it, make it citizen-driven? Perhaps get schools and companies to do such things on their own, take responsibility to see that foreigners are inducted well rather than relying on the Government.

Some academics suggested an "immigration bonus", given only to Singaporeans from levies collected from work permit and SPass holders. Would this work?

I'm not in favour of an immigration bonus, it should not be transactional. It should be about the emotive connection. Going back to national service, it is probably one of the few institutions that bring people together, and is a social leveller. It's the perfect embodiment of equity.

In recent studies conducted by the Reach policy study workgroup and IPS, NS emerged as a key bugbear in the foreign-local divide. The Ministry of Defence revealed that one-third of NS-liable 18-year-old PRs chose not to fulfil their obligations, and gave up their residency.

Can NS be tweaked? Make it mandatory for children of PRs to serve NS, and make their parents put up a security bond that will be forfeited if their kids do not serve NS. Maybe the parents could also be made to give up their PR status if that happens, though that might be too draconian. But this is the elephant in the room.

The Government has defended the need for foreigners, saying they are necessary to keep the economy humming and provide good jobs for Singaporeans. But this seems to not sway many. What would you suggest?

It's divisive now, as people see this as part of the political divide. Some feel that the Government is not on the side of Singaporeans in all of these.

If you want to change that perception, then you've to think harder on how that message is to be brought to Singaporeans.

If policymakers want to make an impact, it might be more effective if they enlist people with different political inclinations. If this population issue matters to everybody, it ought to be something to be tackled collectively.

Reaction to Population White Paper

February 4, 2013, 10:38 pm

≫ Next: Call to relook curbs on foreign labour inflow

≪ Previous: Many want citizenship because of their children

$

0

0

Population priorities and perceptions

By David Chan, Published The Straits Times, 4 Feb 2013

THE strong public reactions to the Population White Paper and the Land Use Plan should be understood in terms of Singaporeans' current experience of the quality of their lives. As we discuss the population roadmap, we must address fundamental issues relating to the purpose, priorities and perceptions of population policies. These issues include effects of land use, social integration, sustainability and well- being.

Strategies to accommodate a bigger population while still offering a good quality of life are discussed in the land use report. Quality of life is multidimensional, with economic, social, psychological and environmental aspects. Ensuring good quality living is going to depend on how the land use strategies are implemented. Policymakers and planners will need to consider diverse views and adapt effectively along the way.

Not every land use issue has to be a zero-sum trade-off situation. For example, safeguarding heritage and green areas need not be inconsistent with urban redevelopment. A historic cemetery could be converted to a publicly accessible heritage park that contributes directly to urban redevelopment. This is feasible with intensification of land use in other areas and effective transport planning.

A holistic approach is more than a technical issue of coordinating between agencies. Each policy needs to be designed and evaluated in terms of multiple goals that together contribute to Singaporeans' quality of life, as opposed to solutions to singular problems. While the latter policy mindset may create unintended negative consequences, the former is likely to effectively achieve more and diverse goals with fewer resources and obstacles.

An example is the intensification of land use. Developing mixed-use clusters of buildings which increase quality living and hence their attractiveness will require us to be sensitive to rising housing prices and office rentals in and near these areas. We should guard against producing and reproducing economic, spatial and social inequalities.

We should think holistically about the diverse aspects of quality of life and the integrative functions of a policy. So instead of letting prices and costs freely rise as part of market conditions, we could adopt policies that would reduce such rises and enhance social goals. For example, there could be policies that lower the cost for residents taking up job opportunities in their neighbourhood. This serves integrative functions because work-home proximity enhances part-time work, flexible work hours and work-life balance, eases the strain on the public transport system, encourages women to enter the workforce and the elderly to remain economically and socially active, contributes to the sense of community in the neighbourhood, encourages entrepreneurship and innovation in business, and creates value- added jobs for various segments of the population.

The population discussion should pay much more attention to social integration, which is not a "nice-to-have" - it is critical and foundational. Without reasonable integration, large population size and high-density living will pose security, social and political challenges that make diversity a liability when it could be an asset for Singapore.

Social integration takes time to develop and once damaged is difficult to restore. The degree of social integration and the pace of its development is not as predictable as building houses or MRT tracks, and not as controllable as the number of foreigners to take in. Citizen well-being and the state of social integration should be key factors when deciding the number and type of foreigners to take in each year.

Large numbers of foreigners create threats to cohesion from crowding, clustering, competition, comparisons and conflict. We need to be more effective managing integration by being more citizen-centric, develop opportunities for contributions by locals and foreigners, invest in community development, be more sensitive in our communications, and better manage conflicts and crises.

According to the White Paper, the ultimate goal is to build a strong Singaporean core. But what is fundamental is citizen well-being, which contributes to national identity, commitment to Singapore and rootedness to the country. These are critical in developing a strong core, which is not only about jobs and wages.

The Government's purpose and society's goal should be about enhancing citizen well-being. So the question should be: "What is the desired composition profile of the population to enhance citizen well-being?" It is about the outcomes and consequences of various profiles, not about a magical number representing the optimal population size to target.

We should work out a desirable and sustainable profile of the population, establishing realistic projected population ranges for city planning and economy structuring. Both the profile and ranges are dynamic and may change over time in response to unexpected shocks and interrupted growth in the population trajectory. Population policy decisions should be made not only based on economic considerations but also the extent to which our society can remain cohesive and resilient.

Well-being is affected by issues of physical space involving land use and social space involving interactions among people. But well-being is also affected by psychological space involving how we think and feel about being Singaporean as we see how population policy decisions are made, experience their impact, compare the outcomes for different segments of the population, and locate ourselves in relation to the nation.

How then to discuss the population roadmap?

First, we need to understand and address citizens' concerns and aspirations.

Second, a strong Singaporean core is more than jobs, wages and taxes. We need to focus on national identity, commitment and rootedness to the country. At the centre is citizen well-being. We need to ensure that the population increase and intensification of land use are translated into outcomes that benefit citizens and contribute to our well-being.

Finally, we need to develop valid social indicators of citizen well-being and liveability. We need to measure and track changes in what citizens think and feel as they experience different domains of their lives. We can then use these results as inputs to policy formulation and revision relating to population numbers and profiles. The multiple dimensions and changes in citizen well-being should be the key impact and outcome indicators for Singapore.

The writer is director of the Behavioural Sciences Institute and professor of psychology at Singapore Management University.

Will our healthcare system be ready?
By Jeremy Lim, Published TODAY, 4 Feb 2013

The recently-released Population White Paper projects Singapore’s population to potentially increase to 6 million in seven years’ time and 6.9 million by 2030. The Government has sounded the reassurance that healthcare infrastructure is being ramped up and “the number of acute hospital beds will increase by 2,200, a 30 per cent increase from today”.

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong, over the weekend, reaffirmed that his ministry ensures its efforts align with the Government’s planning norm so that by 2030, “we will make sure that we have sufficient capacity to meet the population at that time”.

Is this enough?

The chart shows the number of acute hospital beds per 1,000 population in Singapore in 2011 and 2020 (projected based on the White Paper), compared with select Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. Two observations jump out: Firstly, Singapore today has far fewer beds compared to many other developed countries.

Secondly, even with 2,200 additional beds in 2020, because of ongoing population growth, Singapore will increase by just 0.07 to 2.27 beds per 1,000 population, still far below the OECD average today of 3.4 acute hospital beds per 1,000 population.

However, unlike housing or transport, Singapore’s immigration-fuelled population growth may impact healthcare less severely. Age profile matters in health, and the conventional wisdom is that new citizens, Permanent Residents and migrant workers should be relatively young and hardly move the needle in terms of demand for specialist services and hospital beds. It is the elderly who form the largest users of in-patient care.

That said, there are still effects that warrant consideration as Singapore debates the White Paper.

USE OF HEALTH SERVICES

While newcomers may not tax in-patient services significantly, they will need primary care (general practitioners) and emergency services just like everyone else. Singapore already has over-burdened polyclinics and Accident and Emergency Departments across the country, and this will likely push waiting times up even more.

Let us re-examine the conventional wisdom. While newcomers may barely need inpatient care, their relatives will. My experience in the private sector has been that some expatriates of Asian origin do bring their parents to Singapore for healthcare.

Of course, they seek private healthcare but remember we are an inter-related ecosystem and explosive demand in the private sector will undoubtedly lure more doctors out of the public sector and also increase healthcare costs nationally.

Our healthcare system is carefully balanced on a knife’s edge. For efficiency, we hover around the sharp inflexion point on the demand-waiting time graph, and even very small increases in demand can cause waiting times to spike dramatically.

See how waiting times in the Emergency Departments can be “magically” cleared by discharging a handful of patients from the wards. Conversely, a few patients refusing to be discharged in the wards above can wreak havoc in the emergency room below.

OVERCROWDING AND MENTAL HEALTH

There is substantial literature on the effects of crowding in urban settings, and while the data is not conclusive, many academics generally agree that overcrowding is associated with increased levels of psychological stress.

It will be vital for policy makers to consider mental health issues in determining what levels of population densities are appropriate, and specifically make provisions for the lower socio-economic segments of society. As a Cornell University report highlights, “exposure to poor environmental conditions is not randomly distributed and tends to concentrate among the poor and ethnic minorities”.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES RISK

Related to high population densities is the risk of faster spread of infectious diseases. One paediatrician raised concerns that we would see more outbreaks of Hand, Foot and Mouth Disease, influenza and the like. More epidemics, and more severe ones.

Also, would 6.9 million people make it harder to react and respond to a SARS-type outbreak? Are our public health crisis responses readied?

The health and healthcare effects of rapidly growing the Singapore population are not insubstantial. It is simplistic to consider only slivers of healthcare resources such as in-patient beds or the size of the healthcare workforce, but even the state of these do not reassure compared to other developed countries.

To allay Singaporeans’ concerns, the Ministry of Health should reveal the detailed projections and plans it has developed to cope with the multi-hued effects of population growth, including not just physical but also psychological health and pandemic preparedness.

Dr Jeremy Lim has held senior executive positions in both public and private healthcare sectors. He is currently writing a book on the Singapore health system.

Our impending integration challenges

By Terence Chong, Published TODAY, 5 Feb 2013

The Singapore Government’s much awaited Population White Paper was finally released on Jan 29. Within it, two primary challenges are recognised which, like pincers, are closing in at an alarming rate.

On the one hand, the country’s population is ageing rapidly, while on the other, its total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.2 is one of the lowest in the world. This shrinking and simultaneously ageing tendency of the population not only heralds slower economic growth for the near future but also draws attention to some key concerns, such as the impending inability to meet the nation’s military and security needs.

In order to address this future scenario, the White Paper has projected the population trajectory to hit 5.8 million to 6 million by 2020, and between 6.5 million and 6.9 million by 2030.

In light of these stark recommendations, the White Paper’s introduction to the public needed to be a politically managed event.

The Government had long sought to impress upon Singaporeans, in the lead-up to its release, the gravity of the population situation and the difficult decisions in store.

But even best laid plans go awry.

A CURIOUS SITUATION

Initially scheduled for release at the end of last year, the Population White Paper was held up by the Punggol East by-election.

However, that did not only delay its release — leaving reports from DBS Vickers of a possible figure of 7 million to circulate unchallenged — but also led to a curious situation where concrete government measures to address the population issue were unveiled even before the public knew what the relevant figures actually were.

For instance, during the election campaign, the Government seized the opportunity to publicise several major policy initiatives.

The enhanced Marriage and Parenthood package that included increased Baby Bonus; extended paternal leave to encourage more local births; the building of 200,000 new homes by 2016; and the slew of public transportation measures to ease overcrowding, were announced in the heat of the campaign.

For a brief, surreal moment it was as if the medication was being prescribed before details of the ailment were made known.

These measures, in the end, did not stop the swing of votes away from the incumbent party, and may now have only limited impact in assuaging public concerns about a future population of 6.9 million.

ANXIETIES OVER IDENTITY

To be sure, going beyond the headline-grabbing figures, there are several matters with regards to national identity and integration that beg to be addressed first. The first is the anxiety over national identity.

According to the White Paper, “Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation. To have a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean core”.

But with Singaporeans making up only 3.8 million of the projected 6.9 million, or half of the total population, it is uncertain if this core will be stable or not, or whether it will even be identifiable.

While it may be true that identity and values are things that are constantly evolving, if one out of two people in Singapore is a foreigner, local identities and values will evolve at a rate so accelerated that it will cause strong anxiety and insecurity among core Singaporeans.

The rate of incoming foreigners will be unprecedented, especially in relation to the island-state’s small population size.

The proportion of citizens to foreigners may take the country past the tipping point where the idea of Singapore will grow increasingly ambiguous, and thus consign the nation-building project to a constant state of arrested development.

SENSE OF LOSS

The integration process, comprising only of state-sponsored institutions such as the People’s Association or interested individuals like Integration and Naturalisation Champions, is also woefully inadequate.

This is because there are already psychological forces at play that cause anxiety over immigrants. One of these is the worry over limited national resources.

Consequently, the spectre of foreigners “out in force” in the property market “snapping up almost one in three new private homes in Singapore” only serves to fuel fears that Singaporeans will be increasingly priced out of dream homes.

At the mid to lower end level, citizens may grow more resentful of the variety of subsidies that Permanent Residents (PRs) enjoy in key areas such as health, housing and education.

To complicate matters, the persistent perception that the Singapore Government is parsimonious when it comes to welfare benefits may well strengthen the belief that foreigners have better access to the nation’s material resources than needy citizens.

This sense of loss is especially exacerbated in Singaporeans who have expressed suspicions of discrimination by foreigners in hiring positions, who prefer to appoint candidates of their nationality or ethnicity.

PERCEIVED AS ‘SCROUNGERS’

Perceptions of immigrants as exploitative and calculative are, of course, not limited to Singapore. They are quite routine, for example, in the wake of the inflow of Third World immigrants into First World sites where different trans-border groups such as refugees, asylum seekers and economic migrants are often considered welfare scroungers.

While Singapore’s strict immigration laws and tight border controls may have reduced the presence of refugees and asylum seekers to almost nought, perceptions of immigrants as scroungers are perpetuated when immigrants from less developed countries like China and India take up citizenship here to facilitate their move to destinations that they had considered more attractive from the start.

In other cases, local institutes of tertiary education may offer plum scholarships to PRC students to undergo their undergraduate or postgraduate courses, only to see many of these leaving for the United States upon completion of their studies.

In March last year, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean revealed that as many as 300 of the 1,200 citizens who renounced their citizenship each year were actually new citizens. According to Mr Lee Kuan Yew, “some use us as a stepping stone, take courses at our university, then they go off to the US, where the streets are paved of gold, and some don’t come back”.

With the population increase, higher numbers of new citizens renouncing their Singapore citizenship can be expected. The image of them as “scroungers” persists primarily because they are from developing countries that are at least two or three generations away from the level of affluence Singapore enjoys.

PAST AND FUTURE PATTERNS

While it is too early to speculate over the types of new citizens that will be inducted in the future, existing patterns are likely to remain. In other words, Chinese Malaysians will comprise the largest number of new citizens, with Chinese from China coming in second place.

New citizens are likely to be in their 20s, 30s and 40s, and in their economic prime. They are likely to have families, which would be in keeping with the Government’s drive to stem the decline in TFR.

New citizens are also likely to be better-educated than local-born citizens. According to the Department of Statistics, 69.7 per cent of “new citizens” at present have post-secondary education, in comparison to 44.1 per cent of “existing citizens”.

How this greater influx of better educated new citizens will affect less-educated local-born citizens remains to be seen. It is likely that class envy will eventually take deeper root, accentuated by the differences in country of origin.

Another related issue is the requirement of state policy to maintain the ethnic balance in the country. The local Chinese population has a TFR rate of 1.08, the Indian population’s is 1.09, while the Malay population’s is 1.64.

While Chinese from Malaysia and China will augment the local Chinese population and Indians from India the local Indian population, the local Malay population, despite its higher TFR, may decline proportionally given the low immigration rate from the region due to various sensitivities. This problem is bound to manifest itself in starker terms in the near future.

FORMING ENCLAVES?

Finally, of the 6.9 million, it is estimated that 4.4 million will comprise the resident population, of which 3.8 million will be Singaporean citizens. This increase in PRs as well as new citizens will profoundly alter the residential landscape.

One possible outcome is that PRs and new citizens who share the same country of origin may converge on certain residential areas to form exclusive communities and social networks. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is already happening with Indian nationals.

New citizens who live in such exclusive communities may not necessarily share common experiences with ordinary Singaporeans and may have little incentive to integrate. Ties to their country of origin may continue to be strong.

The question then is, will there be measures, perhaps akin to the existing Housing and Development Board ethnic quota policy, to ensure that new Singaporeans do not converge according to their country of origin? This, and other questions, will require definite answers long before 2030.

Terence Chong is an ISEAS Senior Fellow. This is abridged from an article which first appeared in ISEAS Perspective, which is published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.

Experts weigh in on population projections

Past projections fell short of real growth, but some analysts feel that current forecast would have factored in buffer

By Woo Sian Boon, TODAY, 4 Feb 2013

As Parliament sits today to debate the White Paper on population, some experts have questioned the soundness and accuracy of the projected population figures, given the difficulty in forecasting population growth.

Citing the Government’s track record of underestimating population growth, they noted that external factors, such as the global economy and the demand for labour, would likely throw such forecasts off the mark.

Nevertheless, others felt that policymakers would have gleaned lessons from past instances and factored in a buffer in their latest projections.

In particular, demographer Gavin Jones from the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS) pointed out that the population projections for 2030 factored in more than two million non-residents. This would give policymakers some “flexibility”, he noted.

The White Paper projects that by 2020, there could be between 5.8 million and 6 million people in Singapore. By 2030, the range is projected to increase to between 6.5 million and 6.9 million.

But Economic Society of Singapore Vice-President Yeoh Lam Keong reiterated that population growth “always tends to exceed projected forecast”.

“Because, firstly, there is very strong demand for labour from existing labour-intensive industries, and industry has a strong influence on immigration policy,” he said.

“Secondly, given economic uncertainty, during the times when we have growth, the Government tends to err on the side of caution and go for more growth. Given these two tendencies, we tend to systematically overshoot population growth, not intentionally, but because of circumstance and current institutional practice.”

While SIM University economics professor Randolph Tan noted that such forecasts are “always notoriously inaccurate”, he felt that publishing the White Paper was a “responsible” move by the Government, as it allows Singaporeans to air their concerns and hear “both sides of the debate”.

But he said that policymakers could have come up with a less definitive forecast. Instead, Singaporeans could be informed about the probability of reaching a population of 6.9 million by 2030, he suggested.

“The question therefore … is, what is the precision of the projections? What is the potential error range? How far can we afford to be wrong?”

The Government’s past population projections have been below the mark. For example, the Urban Redevelopment Authority’s Concept Plan in 1991 projected a population of four million to be reached after 2010.

By 2000, however, the Republic’s total population had already crossed that mark.

In 2001, the population was estimated to hit 5.5 million in the long term. When it reached 4.6 million in 2007, the projection for planning purposes was adjusted to 6.5 million. The Government had acknowledged that it was caught off guard by the surge in the number of immigrants.

NUS sociologist Tan Ern Ser felt that the Government, in learning from its past experience, “would have built in some buffers and not cut (the projection) too close”.

Agreeing with Dr Tan, NUS Department of Real Estate professor Tay Kah Poh added: “In other words, the plan assumes some degree of over-shooting, which is a huge change in thinking from before.”

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan noted last week that the projection was “aggressive” so that the Government “will not be caught under-providing, as we are experiencing currently” — a stance that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said on Facebook that he fully agreed with.

Still, Mr Yeoh proposed capping the total population to 6 million in 2030 and 6.5 million by 2050.

He said: “A population of 6.5 million will be very cosmopolitan, (there will be) a lot of foreigners but it will still have significant indigenous components. And it will be relatively wealthy so it might resemble … Switzerland, with significant social cohesion and national identity.”

He added that, should Singapore ever reach a population of 8 million to 9 million, “it would look more like Dubai”. There could be “extreme income inequality, extreme dependence on foreigners and would be extremely crowded and unpleasant”, said Mr Yeoh.

Meanwhile, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Senior Fellow Donald Low criticised the lack of scholarship and academic rigour in the White Paper.

Writing on Facebook, Mr Low, a former high-flying civil servant, noted that there “wasn’t even a References section to show what research the writers of the paper had done, what social science theories they relied on, what competing theories/frameworks they looked at”.

Citing Australia’s recent White Paper on Australia in the Asian Century or reports by the British government, which he said are “always complete with references to the social science literature”, Mr Low added: “There was also a surprising lack of rigorous comparison with other countries that have gone through, or are going through, a similar demographic transition.”

Managing immigration: What S’pore can learn from others
By Ling Tok Hong, Published TODAY, 2 Feb 2013

At the announcement of the White Paper on population, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said the Government hopes to strike the “appropriate balance”. This balance is key.

The Government’s marriage and parenthood package may set the brakes on the falling total fertility rate and help build the core of citizens, but there is a limit to how much impact it will have in the long run. This is because of changing social trends and norms which have had a negative impact on global fertility rates.

A “closed-door” approach to immigrants in the long run will therefore not work. Immigrants are needed to complement the resident workforce by taking on lower-skilled jobs, as well as to provide access to highly-skilled workers who facilitate economic upgrading and productivity increases.

On the other hand, a fully “open-door” approach is also not the way to go, as it will put tremendous pressure on Singapore’s scarce resources and on social integration issues.

Finding a balanced approach to immigrants — “smart and managed growth” — will be key to the success of the population strategy, and Singapore could look to the experience of other leading cities that have sought to increase immigration levels. Their experiences provide a useful reference, even if they may not be fully applicable to Singapore’s unique context.

SOCIAL COHESION POLICY

What is particularly important is that Singapore actively manages the type of immigrants it brings in.

A targeted policy to attract immigrants based on particular skill and resource needs, in areas where there is a shortage of locals, will have positive impact on growth; but these resource gaps must be carefully defined and continually updated as Singapore’s economy develops over time, global demands change and demographics alter.

The social and political impacts should also be managed. Suitable immigrants should be willing to sink roots and grow their families here. It will be important to create a national consensus around the need for integration and to encourage greater acceptance of immigrants.

While Singapore already works hard to ensure that ethnic diversity is valued and social cohesion encouraged, it should consider developing a multicultural social cohesion policy which is fully integrated with the city’s strategic planning processes. There would be well-defined objectives and initiatives, with periodic monitoring of their implementation.

TORONTO: EASING IN NEWCOMERS

Toronto is a useful reference point. It has a very big immigrant population but has managed to build a strong sense of national identity based on civic commonalities and values.

Every year, roughly half of Toronto’s new residents are born outside Canada and many more immigrate from all areas of the country. Specifically, 60,000 or more newcomers settle in Toronto each year, adding to the number of languages spoken and cultures mixing in the city.

Programmes introduced by the city of Toronto to help the integration process of newcomers include services like reception, orientation, translation and referral to community services — all of which can go a long way in helping them adjust.

Language can also become a significant barrier to inclusion and participation for many new immigrants, which is why basic instruction in French and English is provided.

Another way Toronto addresses the needs of young immigrants is by providing settlement workers in schools to help their families adapt to a new country. Its main approach to addressing the needs of young newcomers is by working with the family as a whole.

SOUTH KOREA: TACKLING PREJUDICE

Closer to home, South Korea is an interesting example of where the government has sought to ease the integration of immigrants through encouraging transition to a multicultural society and reducing race-based discrimination.

In April 2006, the government granted legal status to people having mixed-race backgrounds and their families, “as part of measures to eradicate prejudices and discrimination against them”.

Universities were required to admit a certain number of “mixed-heritage” students; and special programmes were proposed to provide educational assistance, legal and financial aid and employment counselling to poor families. The law barring “mixed race” Koreans from serving in the military was also revised in 2006.

In June 2009, the Korea Immigration Service released a report, The First Basic Plan for Immigration Policy, 2008-2012. This 120-page report provides a basic blueprint for a transition to a multicultural society in South Korea and acknowledges the inexorability of global immigration to South Korea (for non-skilled workers, high-skilled workers, foreign spouses, the Korean “Diaspora” and others).

The report addresses key issues including social integration, citizenship and naturalisation laws or procedures, civic education on multiculturalism, educational policies and so on. The plan signified a dramatic, even fundamental, shift in South Korea’s official perspective on immigration: Multiculturalism, inclusivity and integration are key themes.

NETHERLANDS’ WOES

On the other hand, the Netherlands is one country whose immigration integration policies did not succeed in the 1980s, resulting in negative impacts.

Population measures had included capping the number of schooling years immigrants could have to ensure they would not compete with locals for higher-value jobs. That approach backfired. Immigrants struggled to learn the local language and integrate into Dutch society.

Last but not least, from our experience studying global cities and population issues, it is important to note that advances in technology mean that cities of the future can accommodate greater population numbers, and various strategic policies can be implemented to ease the infrastructural constraints.

The Government’s plan on land use, released on Thursday, is a key ingredient in the White Paper’s aim to strike the appropriate balance. An early positive sign are the plans to greatly expand the rail network.

Singapore’s strong tradition in urban planning and its cutting-edge position in urban technology and solutions also put it in a good position to meet these challenges.

Ling Tok Hong is Partner and Singapore Strategy Leader of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). Since 2006, PwC has been analysing leading cities to understand what challenges they have in common, published as Cities of the Future, Cities of Opportunity.

How useful are the numbers?
By Randolph Tan, Published TODAY, 1 Feb 2013

The White Paper is arguably one of the most important policy documents we have had in recent years.

By setting out the policy direction on population matters for the coming decades, it touches on a critical issue that will determine not just our economic viability, but the evolution of our national identity in the future.

As the discussion opens up on the issues set out in the paper, some key aspects of importance include potential follow-ups that the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) could look into, the usefulness of the projections in the paper, the factors that affect the validity of the projections used to rationalise the policy arguments and what immigration should mean to Singapore.

The usefulness of the projections extends beyond just the figures. They inform us of the challenges we have been through on the population issue and suggests what is likely to occur under circumstances as we understand them today.

There are, of course, unknowns when you project that far into the future, and it is useful to consider what factors could significantly throw off the projections.

At least two come to mind: Technology and politics.

TECHNOLOGY REVOLUTION?

Much of our current technology was unimaginable mere decades ago.

If you go online today, you see videos showing how mobile phones can be used to recognise and solve a scrambled Rubik’s cube.

Yet, for all practical purposes, it is still very difficult for the average person to harness an iPhone’s massive computing capacity to do the laundry.

But, laundry aside, there are already indications that the reach of at least some forms of manpower could be extended by latching onto the increasingly powerful Internet connectivity that’s available to us.

In all areas of science and technology, we appear to be poised tantalisingly on the edge of new frontiers that could re-shape the relationship of human beings to work.

If we can envisage one day mining asteroids for rare minerals, we could then find that the equation for our economic efficiency is dependent on quite different variables from today’s.

We might then even consider a very different world where numbers of persons are less important than the technology they can wield.

THE WILDCARD OF POLITICS

The other great unknown is politics.

We do not yet know if the politics of the future will facilitate or inhibit the flow of manpower.

In contrast to the relatively slow pace at which technology has extended the reach of manpower, the political changes of the last three decades have been the primary factor accelerating it.

People travel across the borders of former adversaries, in numbers we thought impossible during the stand-off of the former Cold War.

The large movements across the Iron Curtain, or out of Vietnam or China, in the 1960s and 1970s were largely driven by conflicts and ideological struggles. Yet, they benefited their receiving countries, and led to significant transformations.

Who could have imagined a China possibly outstripping the United States and Europe as a magnet for the most talented manpower in the world?

At the same time, its workers man factories, build roads and staff offices from Africa to Latin America.

SLOWER INCREASE BETTER BUT ...

In the coming days, as the discussion probes the minutiae of the White Paper’s analysis, another aspect of potential interest could be the changing nature of immigration.

It is almost certainly going to be true that people will migrate across borders in increasingly large numbers.

The latest post on the Asian Development Bank Institute blog, Asia Pathways, discusses the potential for international workers to contribute more to global output growth than would the further opening up of trade.

Thus, the question here is not whether we need foreign manpower, because Singapore has depended on and benefited from the availability of such workers since independence.

The difference is the rate of increase in recent years.

Indeed, a Singapore without foreign manpower will not be possible.

If we recognise that, then the question is how much we can accommodate and what the policies needed to accommodate such a migrant workforce should be.

A slower rate of increase, in my opinion, should be better because it allows Singapore citizens time to come to terms with the changes while benefiting foreign workers at the same time.

Having said that, it would run counter to the efforts Singapore has made over the last few years if we turn against the tide of an economic vision of a borderless world for talent — just at the point when the rest of our competitors are embracing it.

The one thing we have learned is that we should be careful not to reach that point ahead of our time.

Randolph Tan is Associate Professor of Business at SIM University, School of Business.

Related

Population White Paper

Land Use Plan

Call to relook curbs on foreign labour inflow

February 4, 2013, 10:39 pm

≫ Next: Parliament Highlights - 4 Feb 2013

≪ Previous: Reaction to Population White Paper

$

0

0

SME group asks: Are higher-skilled foreigners taking jobs from S'poreans?

By Aaron Low, The Straits Times, 4 Feb 2013

THE body representing small and medium firms here has asked for a closer look at the issue of restricting the inflow of foreign workers in Singapore, in its response to the White Paper on population released last week.

Noting that Singaporeans have been urging the Government to reduce the influx of foreigners here, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) said the Government has responded by restricting the flow of both low-skilled foreign workers and foreign talent.

But it said that it could be higher-skilled foreign talent who are taking jobs away from Singaporeans and asked if there are enough jobs for Singapore professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).

"Is the public outcry over the abundance of lower-skilled foreign workers... or is the outcry more targeted at foreign talent taking jobs away from Singaporean PMETs and putting downward pressure on the salaries and job security of older Singaporeans?" the association asked in a statement.

"The real problem may be the masses of foreign professionals depressing wages across the board for local PMETs."

If this is the case, the association urged the Government to reconsider tightening the flow of lower-skilled foreign workers. If not, SMEs may not be able to "function optimally" and will be forced to downsize or shut down.

The association, which represents 6,500 SMEs, also said that the projected growth of the workforce by 1 per cent to 2 per cent from now to 2020, and 1 per cent thereafter to 2030, in the White Paper may not be enough to support the expansion of infrastructure, such as the building of more homes and MRT rail lines.

It described the Government's projections of productivity gains as "overly optimistic", noting that Singapore achieved only 1.8 per cent productivity growth in the past decade, below the 2 per cent to 3 per cent target set by the White Paper.

The association also called for levies and worker quotas to be differentiated among jobs, depending on the importance of each sector to the economy and how receptive Singaporeans are to the jobs in the sector.

The statement from the association was the latest in a series released by the local business community expressing its views on the White Paper that was released last Tuesday.

SMEs, which account for 99 per cent of all enterprises here and employ 70 per cent of workers, have been particularly outspoken.

Last week, the Singapore Business Federation (SBF), which represents 18,000 companies, warned of "devastating consequences" for SMEs should there be further moves to restrict the flow of foreign workers here.

The federation's chief executive Ho Meng Kit said not enough attention has been paid to the risk that productivity cannot rise fast enough to make up for the slowdown in manpower growth.

"If you have very low productivity, how are firms going to reward and raise wages? If you don't raise wages, you are jeopardising median wage increases for the man on the street," he said.

Mr Ho said many small firms are still unprepared for the slower growth of manpower.

"It's like an earthquake that happens in Japan and seven hours later, the tsunami hits Hawaii. It takes a while but it's going to happen," he said.

"We are preparing for the wave. We want to save as many companies as we can, and we hope many will survive."

ASME urges Govt to examine impact of foreign talent inflow
By Wong Wei Han, TODAY, 4 Feb 2013

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are calling on the Government to examine whether there are enough quality jobs for Singaporeans who may have lost job opportunities in the Professionals, Managers, Executives and Technicians (PMET) sector due to the inflow of foreign talent.

In a statement released yesterday responding to the White Paper on population, the Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (ASME) cited a recent survey which found that the majority of white-collar professionals here would consider going overseas for better opportunities, indicating discontentment among PMETs.

“Is the public outcry (against foreign workers) over the abundance of lower skilled foreign workers, such as construction workers and cleaners, or is the outcry more targeted at foreign talent taking jobs away from Singaporean PMETs and putting greater downward pressure on salaries and job security of older PMETs?” the association asked.

If the unhappiness about foreign manpower lies at the PMET level, then the Government’s moves to tighten foreign worker inflow so far “threaten the survival of a good number of SMEs in Singapore”.

In this case, “the foreign labour quotas in place for lower-skilled workers should be re-examined and perhaps relaxed,” it added.

The White Paper projects that two-thirds of Singaporeans will take up PMET jobs by 2030, while total workforce growth will slow to 1 per cent due to demographic shifts. Meanwhile, the Government is planning to further slow the inflow of foreign manpower.

Referring to the same survey — which was released last week by recruiting firm Ambition, the ASME said that it showed the importance of Government and company policies in attracting and retaining individuals.

“We, therefore, call upon the Government to provide SMEs with more incentives to develop and improve their human resource systems and processes,” it added.

“Due to their size and resource constraints, many SMEs face difficulties in managing human resource. To attract and keep talent, SMEs need more resources to address employees’ problems and to provide better work-life balance, for instance,” ASME President Chan Chong Beng said.

“Without such ability, companies will likely see high employee turnover rate, which makes them less willing to send staff for training. As a result, we see a vicious circle, where productivity improvement remains a challenge.”

The association also felt that the White Paper’s projection of 3 per cent productivity growth this decade and 2 per cent in the next was “overly optimistic”.

Noting that companies continue to grapple with shrinking margins and resources, it said that a reckless drive for higher productivity in this context may lead to higher costs and even inflation.

“If these productivity gains do not materialise, the Government must be prepared to relax its tight control over the workforce to prevent the economy from being adversely affected,” the ASME said.

“A buffer in manpower supply is critical to enable both the economy and local SMEs to better respond to rapid and multifaceted changes in external and internal economic conditions.”

The association also recommended that a National Jobs Index be created to assign a score to various jobs according to different levels of acceptability by Singaporeans, and degrees of importance to the national agenda.

For example, jobs Singaporeans shun but are necessary or important to Singapore, such as construction work, will be rated higher. The higher indexed jobs should be assigned a lower levy and given a higher quota and vice versa. Such an index would “facilitate a statistical and objective gauge” of whether Singapore meets its foreign manpower policy objectives, the ASME said.

Unions weigh in on White Paper

They seek assurances that good jobs and wages, quality of life will not be affected

By Toh Yong Chuan, The Sunday Times, 3 Feb 2013

Union leaders have voiced their concerns about the impact of a growing population and slowing economic growth, and called on the Government to ensure good jobs and wages and to put Singaporeans' interests first.

They did so in a closed-door dialogue with labour chief Lim Swee Say on Friday, three days after the release of the White Paper on Population, which projects up to 6.9 million people here by 2030.

The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) yesterday released a statement summing up the discussion, which was attended by leaders of 20 of Singapore's largest unions.

Saying that they spoke for the workers they serve, the union leaders called on the Government to focus on five key areas.

First, keep unemployment low and fend off wage stagnation as economic growth slows to a projected 3 to 5 per cent up to 2020, and 2 to 3 per cent from then to 2030. Also, pay special attention to vulnerable workers to ensure they too can have better jobs and pay.

Mr R.K.S. Nachiappan, general secretary of the Union of Power and Gas Employees, told The Sunday Times that unionists want to hear about strategies to raise salaries and ensure Singaporeans take up the better-paying jobs.

Second, assure Singaporeans that the infrastructure of 2020 and 2030 will be better than that of today. They singled out three areas for improvement; availability of affordable housing, reliability and adequacy of public transport and in health care, shorter waiting times and costs.

Third, Singaporeans' interests must come first, whether in education, health care, jobs or wages. Their standard of living and quality of life must get better, not worse.

Mr Ong Choon Fatt, a branch official with the Food, Drinks and Allied Workers' Union, said locals must get help to upgrade their skills.

Fourth, the Government must make sure a larger population does not lead to higher inflation or a less sustainable environment.

Fifth, there must be all-round and continued engagement on the White Paper, and regular reviews, to encourage citizens' trust and involvement in building the future together.

Responding, Mr Lim, NTUC's chief, assured union leaders that the White Paper is indeed an opportunity for the labour movement to work with the Government on Singapore's future.

He urged them to take a long-term view: "We can maximise the upside and minimise the downside of a growing population to better the lives of Singaporeans."

Yesterday, two days before Parliament starts its debate on the Government's population road map, two ministers assured Singaporeans that the Government has planned ahead.

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong said a plan is already in place to ensure enough health-care capacity by 2020, for a larger and ageing population. His ministry is also now starting to plan for the decade beyond that.

Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Vivian Balakrishnan said that thanks to technology, he can confidently reassure Singaporeans that the country will not run out of water in 20, 30 or even 50 years.

Advocacy group Aware expressed concern that the Government had once again focused on economic growth rather than the well-being of people, as the main determinant of population size. It urged the Government to conduct a proper public consultation before seeking Parliament's endorsement of the proposed policy.

Parliament Highlights - 4 Feb 2013

February 4, 2013, 11:00 pm

≫ Next: DPM Teo's parliamentary speech on Population White Paper

≪ Previous: Call to relook curbs on foreign labour inflow

$

0

0

White Paper to ensure a good quality of life, says DPM Teo
By Teo XuanWei, TODAY, 5 Feb 2013

Seeking to tackle the questions on Singaporeans’ minds since the White Paper was released last week — such as whether Singaporeans would end up becoming strangers in an overcrowded home, and whether the Government was pursuing growth at all costs, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean reiterated yesterday that the aim of the exercise is to benefit Singaporeans and ensure a good quality of life.

Kicking off the debate in Parliament on the White Paper, Mr Teo, who is also Minister-in-charge of the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), stressed that the projected population range was “only to prepare infrastructure plans”.

“It is the ability to meet the needs of Singaporeans and provide a good quality of life that is the driver, not the numbers per se,” said Mr Teo. “If we are able to achieve this with a smaller population, whether 6.5 million or perhaps even lower, there is no reason to go higher.”

The White Paper projects a population of between 6.5 and 6.9 million by 2030.

Mr Teo also said the population projections were to give “decision makers sufficient capacity and flexibility” to plan for infrastructure that could take years to plan and build.

Mr Teo asserted that the ageing and shrinking citizen population was an issue “we need to deal with now”: In just 18 years, the proportion of citizens over age 65 will jump from 7 to 14 per cent; as compared to the 24 years it took in Japan, for example, he said.

He also cited how a shrinking working adult to retired elderly ratio would not only mean higher taxes and fewer job and career opportunities as business activity thins out, but could also see young Singaporeans heading overseas for greener pastures.

To prevent such scenarios here, Singapore will need to “augment” its population with new citizens and Permanent Residents (PRs), said Mr Teo, although he added that the “best and most fundamental way (to sustain our Singaporean population) is to encourage Singaporeans to start families”.

Noting the concerns that Singaporeans will feel like strangers in their own land, Mr Teo said the Government has significantly lowered its PR intake in the last three years. The number of new PRs will be maintained at between 0.5 and 0.6 million, he added, even as the Government keeps up efforts to encourage and help new citizens to integrate into society and become “more like us over time”.

On scepticism over whether the Government was “pro-Singaporean or pro-foreigner”, Mr Teo pointed out that the imported manpower is brought in “to support Singaporeans’ needs”. The majority of these foreigners will do lower-skilled jobs that Singaporeans shun and provide services that they need — such as healthcare, domestic services, construction, and cleaning — as opposed to the expected two-thirds of Singaporeans taking up PMET jobs by 2030.

Turning to the 2 to 3 per cent economic growth target from 2020 to 2030, Mr Teo noted that it was less than half of the 5.6-per-cent average annual growth which Singapore had in the 2000s.

“So we are certainly not pursuing growth at all costs, as some have mistakenly claimed. Instead, we have set our sights on high-quality, productivity-driven, sustainable growth that will help to create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans,” he said.

White Paper 'is for S'poreans' benefit'
DPM Teo: Proposals are not aimed at growth at all cost or pro-foreigner
By Robin Chan, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

DAYS after it sparked heated debate, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean yesterday sought to refocus on the core aim of the White Paper on Population: that all its plans are purely to benefit Singaporeans.

Contrary to claims that it is pro-foreigner, or meant to pursue growth at all cost, he said that the proposals in the controversial paper are driven by the need to provide Singaporeans with a good quality of life, and seek to balance Singapore's future needs and constraints in housing, population, infrastructure and foreign workers.

The proposals mark a significant slowdown in workforce and population growth from the past, and are not about deciding on what the population size must be in 2030, he said, as the Government actually hopes that it will not need to reach 6.9 million.

"The White Paper is fundamentally for the benefit of all Singaporeans - ourselves, our children, and their children. To make sure that Singaporeans continue to live in a harmonious society, with strong supportive families, good jobs, and a good living environment," said DPM Teo as he moved a motion for Parliament to endorse the paper.

The document and the accompanying land use report have triggered many negative reactions since their release last week, as Singaporeans worried aloud about the figure of a 6.9 million population in 2030, and the continued open policy towards foreigners.

Yesterday, eight MPs rose to speak, and many made a similar plea that policies must not dilute the Singaporean core, and that economic growth must benefit Singaporeans.

The Workers' Party opposed the motion. Party chairman and Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim countered with a proposal of its own that would allow for a slower- growing population to reach 5.9 million in 2030 instead.

Ms Lim said: "The well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the Government's proposal. Is it worth it?"

With an impassioned debate set to take place over the next four days, DPM Teo chose to highlight two points to allay concerns.

The first is that the population projections mark a "major shift" as there will be a significant slowdown in population and workforce growth from the past.

The labour force growth rate is being halved from the average rate of the past 30 years, to between 1 per cent and 2 per cent a year till 2020, and to 1 per cent till 2030.

The second point is that the Government is not deciding that Singapore will have a population of 6.9 million by 2030.

It is setting parameters to be able to build infrastructure ahead of time to avoid the problems Singapore now faces from under-providing. What the actual population will be in 2030 will depend on Singaporeans' needs, and decisions on economic and workforce policy along the way, he said.

With restructuring and productivity gains, Singaporeans living healthier and longer and therefore choosing to remain in the workforce longer, and more women joining the workforce, the Government hopes the population will not reach 6.9 million.

DPM Teo also rebutted criticisms that the policies were overly focused on foreigners.

The proposals are first and foremost to stabilise and sustain the Singaporean population, with a careful balance of parenthood measures and a controlled number of new citizens. This will be complemented by foreigners, most of whom will be on work permits, doing jobs that Singaporeans do not want to do.

He concluded by sketching out what life could be like in 2030, with good opportunities, higher skills and a better living environment. "Let's strive together to realise the 'Singapore promise' - a better life, a better tomorrow, for Singaporeans of all ages," he said.

Most foreigners will be supporting citizens, says DPM

Teo Chee Hean addresses concerns about foreigner numbers in 2030

By Leonard Lim, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

MOST non-resident foreigners in future will be on work permits, doing jobs and providing services that Singapore needs but which Singaporeans do not want to do themselves.

These foreigners - who are expected to make up about 45per cent of the population in 2030 - are necessary to support citizens' needs, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said yesterday.

"For example, we expect to need significantly more health-care, eldercare and domestic services workers to support our ageing population and working families," said Mr Teo, who oversees population matters.

These workers also build homes, transport infrastructure like rail lines and roads, and keep housing estates clean.

He added: "They thus enable Singaporeans to enjoy good social and municipal services while moderating the cost of these services, contribute to our quality of life, and allow more Singaporeans to be in the workforce."

As citizens become better-educated, they will have higher job aspirations and foreign work pass holders will be needed to fill up more lower-skilled jobs, he told the House at the opening of the week-long debate on the White Paper on Population.

The number of Singaporeans in lower-skilled jobs is predicted to fall by 200,000 by 2030.

The White Paper, released last week, projects that there will be 2.3 million to 2.5 million non-residents at that time, up from about 1.5 million today.

Those figures, coupled with the projection of the total population rising from 5.3 million today to between 6.5 and 6.9 million by 2030, have sparked concerns that the overall approach was pro-foreigner.

Addressing such worries, DPM Teo said the number of foreign workers will be controlled and the overall growth rate in their inflow will be "significantly reduced" in the coming years. "Industries currently dependent on foreign workers will have to learn to do more with less," he said.

Those on work passes are also in Singapore during their productive years and will return to their home countries, he added.

"Hence, they help boost our ratio of working persons to retirees, but do not add to our retiree population. We are also able to adjust the numbers and types of foreign workers flexibly, depending on our changing needs," he said.

He pointed out that foreigners, with their diverse skills and backgrounds, also bring benefits.

They can help companies expand to regional and international markets, set up regional headquarters here, or kick-start new high value-added sectors.

These new activities will provide more good job opportunities which citizens can eventually take up, he said.

Turning to the country's ageing population conundrum, he said the dependency ratio of working persons for each retiree will fall to just 2.1 in future.

In 2011, there were seven working adults supporting one retiree.

But, by supplementing the core workforce with foreign workers, Singapore can keep the ratio at about four in 2030, similar to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development average today.

DPM Teo also acknowledged some Singaporeans' concerns that there are jobs which they want, but which are going to foreigners.

It is a fine balance, the minister said. To create jobs, companies may need to supplement their workforce with foreigners.

But the Government will ensure that Singaporeans "benefit from the good jobs", he said.

He added that the Ministry of Manpower will address some of these concerns later in the debate.

PROVIDING THE FULL PICTURE
We have been asked by many why we even need to do this. It would be easier and less controversial to ignore our demographic challenge, and avoid dealing with it. But we believe in giving Singaporeans the full picture. It is more responsible to surface the issues and plan ahead while we are able to do so.
- DPM Teo 

Why maintaining stable core population is crucial to S'pore
By Goh Chin Lian, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

AN AGEING and shrinking population could mean that workers will have to pay higher taxes to fund subsidised health care for a large number of seniors, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said.

Business activity could also slow down with less investment in new sectors and fewer job opportunities, he warned.

Hence, maintaining a sustainable and stable Singaporean population is the "first and most important part" of the Population White Paper, he said yesterday.

Mr Teo made these cautionary points when explaining why the problem of an ageing society needed urgent attention.

"Young Singaporeans may decide to leave for more exciting opportunities in other growing cities. This would hollow out our population and workforce.

"This is a real worry for parents, too, who wonder whether their children will go abroad in search of better opportunities, and they will be left alone here during their silver years," he told Parliament when introducing the White Paper for debate.

Mr Teo noted that between now and 2030, more than 900,000 Baby Boomers - or more than a quarter of the citizen population now - will enter their silver years. By 2025, the citizen population will start to shrink if nothing is done.

The total fertility rate of 1.2 means that for every 100 Singaporeans in this generation, there will be 60 Singaporeans in the next generation, and only 36 in the following generation.

"This threatens the sustainability of our Singaporean core population," said the DPM.

The ratio of working-age citizens to each citizen aged 65 and older will also fall, from 5.9 now to 2.1 by 2030.

"The issue is indeed upon us, and is an issue we need to deal with now," he said.

If no decisive action is taken, Mr Teo warned, Singapore could fare worse than Japan, which became an aged population in 24 years. This was faster than Italy's 61 years, Sweden's 85 years, and France's 115 years. Singapore will take just 18 years.

The best and most fundamental way is to encourage Singaporeans to start families, but new citizens and permanent residents are also needed, he said.

He estimated that taking in between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens a year would keep Singapore's citizen core population stable and sustainable.

This core population will then hold steady at around 3.6 million to 3.8 million in 2030, just like if Singaporeans had replaced themselves fully and had a 2.1 total fertility rate.

If 30,000 people are given permanent resident status a year, the permanent resident population will stay stable at between 500,000 and 600,000.

But at current birth rates with no immigration, the Singaporean core will shrink sharply below today's 3.3 million, he warned.

Many have also asked why the Government chose to table the White Paper, attracting criticism for projecting the population to rise up to 6.9 million by 2030.

The country, said DPM Teo, was at an "important turning point" where the citizen population will begin ageing rapidly and shrinking if nothing was done.

It would be easier and less controversial to ignore the demographic challenge.

"But we believe in giving Singaporeans the full picture. It is more responsible to surface the issues and plan ahead while we are able to do so," he said.

As the White Paper was being drafted, the Government worked closely with planning and infrastructure agencies to make sure that it could maintain a high quality living environment.

To address the immediate concerns of Singaporeans about over-crowdedness, it has stepped up development of public transport and housing to ease shortages, he added.

For example, about 800 new buses will be put on the road over five years, and more trains will be added to reduce waiting time during the peak hours.

Mr Teo ended his speech with a peek into what life would be like in Singapore for Singaporeans by 2030.

"You will have good quality jobs and opportunities, have access to services to support your family needs, and enjoy a high quality living environment.

"Let's strive together to realise the 'Singapore promise' - a better life, a better tomorrow, for Singaporeans of all ages," he said.

Govt 'not pursuing growth at all cost'
By Goh Chin Lian, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

DEPUTY Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean stated unequivocally yesterday that the Government was not pursuing growth at all cost and just importing foreign workers to drive the growth.

Instead, it was seeking growth that would create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans, he said.

Mr Teo cited two scenarios eschewed by the Government.

One is to freeze the foreign workforce numbers at the current level.

Such a move will hurt businesses, investments and jobs. For instance, if it was done last year, the economy would have lost $16 billion worth of new foreign investments that would create 18,600 skilled jobs.

Also, there will be fewer workers to do the jobs that many Singaporeans shun, such as in construction, cleaning and caring for elderly parents or young children.

The other scenario is to continue to increase the foreign worker numbers as quickly as before. This would push the population well beyond 6.9 million and Singapore's physical capacity by 2030.

"Neither of these extreme scenarios leads to desirable outcomes... This is why the White Paper has sought to strike a careful balance in terms of workforce growth," said Mr Teo.

"We are proposing a significant change of gears in our development trajectory."

The White Paper proposes halving total workforce growth to 1 to 2 per cent a year for the next decade, and then down to about 1 per cent a year after that.

Productivity growth will be sustained initially at 2 to 3 per cent a year, before moderating to 1 to 2 per cent a year.

Gross domestic product growth may then average 3 to 4 per cent a year up to 2020, and between 2 and 3 per cent in the following decade up to 2030.

The 2 to 3 per cent range converges with mature economies and is less than half of Singapore's 5.6 per cent average annual growth in the 2000s.

Mr Teo said: "So we are certainly not pursuing growth at all costs, as some have mistakenly claimed.

"Instead, we have set our sights on high-quality, productivity-driven, sustainable growth that will help to create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans."

Citizens must feel benefits of growth: MPs
By Rachel Chang, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

PAP MPs yesterday supported the Population White Paper, but urged the Government to ensure that the benefits from its growth strategy are more tangibly felt by citizens.

"The Government must illustrate clearly how, as a result of the population policies, an intended objective is to create better job opportunities and higher salaries for Singaporeans," said Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC), who opened the debate.

"And then make it happen."

Singapore's high global rankings "must translate to better lives for Singaporeans", emphasised Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC).

"They cannot be rankings in the abstract."

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast GRC) lamented that the dire consequences of a shrinking workforce and ageing population were not more apparent to Singaporeans.

He pointed out that the country is "finished" if harsh labour restrictions lead to a "twin exodus" of small and medium-sized enterprises and multinational corporations.

To make the White Paper's prescriptions more acceptable to Singaporeans, he said, housing prices - a bugbear for many citizens - must be curbed further.

Mr de Souza concurred, and asked the Government to adopt the Australian model of allowing foreigners to sell their properties only to locals, thereby preventing cash-rich foreigners from controlling the direction of the property market.

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast GRC) and Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio GRC) said the Government must take more care and time to explain the White Paper's rationale to Singaporeans, with Ms Foo noting that alternative scenarios - and their consequences - should be made public.

By doing so, Singaporeans can understand the costs and benefits of each alternative, and feel they have "genuinely participated in the national debate and been part of the decision-making process".

"This sense is not offered by the White Paper," she noted.

In adding new citizens to the Singaporean core, Mr Seng and Mr Fong wanted to see foreign spouses of Singaporeans have the first bite of the cherry.

Workers' Party chairman Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) also lobbied for this.

Permanent residents with spouses and children who are citizens, they noted, are best placed to integrate into local society.


 

WP rejects road map, offers its own

It proposes lower growth targets, upper-end 5.9m population by 2030

By Rachel Chang, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

THE Workers' Party (WP) opposes the Population White Paper because its road map will dilute national identity and shrink the ranks of born-and-bred Singaporeans to a minority, said party chairman Sylvia Lim yesterday.

Setting the agenda of the WP's nine MPs for the parliamentary debate, Ms Lim charged that the Government has its priorities the wrong way around in aiming for economic growth targets and using the population to get there.

"While we accept that trade- offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets," said Ms Lim, on the first day of the debate.

The WP is proposing an alternative approach of an upper-bound population size of 5.9 million by 2030, and economic growth targets of 2.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent annually from now until 2020, and 1.5 per cent to 2.5 per cent annually from 2020 to 2030.

This is about 0.5 to 1 percentage point less than the White Paper's, and will be achieved largely through productivity improvements and more foreign spouses, homemakers and senior citizens in the workforce, she said.

Ms Lim zeroed in on the White Paper's goal to have a "strong Singaporean core" at the heart of the population, arguing that it is an empty one given that the number of Singaporeans is projected to fall to 55 per cent of the population in 2030, from the current 62 per cent.

In fact, she noted, this percentage includes new citizens who, while making good economic contributions, "see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change".

"Instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, world view, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family," she said.

Hence, a real Singaporean core must be made up of those who "grew up in and with Singapore".

Under the proposed road map, indigenous Singaporeans will be a minority, a demographic outcome that will "change the character of Singapore forever", she warned.

The best way to boost the Singaporean core, she said, is to do more to raise the total fertility rate (TFR) but the Government's efforts in this area have been "half-hearted", as it believes "immigration top-ups" remain its key population strategy.

She compared its seemingly "resigned" attitude towards the low TFR to that of countries like South Korea, where a committed approach to removing the institutional and structural obstacles to childbearing has been taken.

Later, WP MP Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (Aljunied GRC) expanded on the point, saying the Government should "lead the way through action and legislation" on work-life balance and flexi-work arrangements. He pointed to high housing prices as a reason for young couples' reluctance to start families, and said there is a global correlation between low fertility rates and population density.

As for the ageing population, Ms Lim said that senior citizens "may not be as much of a burden as the Government makes out".

A key premise of the White Paper is that by 2030, there will be only 2.1 working citizens to support each person who is 65 and above, down from 5.9 now.

But this ignores the possibility that many senior citizens may have their own economic resources and be able to work until they are much older, she noted.

In a parting shot, Ms Lim concluded that the White Paper's title, "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore", illustrated its muddled priorities.

In the WP's view, it should be "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore", she said.

Concern that Malay proportion will shrink
By Rachel Chang, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

TWO Malay MPs expressed concern yesterday that the Malay-Muslim share of the population will shrink along with the size of the Singaporean core.

Speaking on the first day of the parliamentary debate on the White Paper, People's Action Party (PAP) MP Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio GRC) said that "a common feeling among the Malay-Muslim community is that a decrease in our population will affect racial stability and interracial relations in Singapore".

She urged the Government to try harder to attract Malay graduates and professionals from Malaysia and Indonesia to become Singapore permanent residents (PRs) or new citizens.

It should also share information on the type of immigrants of Malay origin in Singapore, as well as the measures it takes to attract more of them here, to assure the community, she added.

The Malay share of the population has decreased slightly over time, from 14.1 per cent in 1990, to 13.9 per cent in 2000, to 13.4 per cent in the latest census in 2010.

This is despite the Malays' total fertility rate (TFR) outstripping that of the other ethnic groups. In 2011, the TFR among Malays was about 1.6, compared with 1.1 for the Chinese and Indians.

Statistics on the racial breakdown of PRs here are not available, but of the half a million PRs, only 5.5 per cent are Muslim.

Workers' Party (WP) MP Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (Aljunied GRC) said he was concerned that the ethnic group's share was falling due to a large number of local Malays emigrating and renouncing their citizenship. A big reason they do so is that they perceive a lack of equal opportunities for them here, he said.

He pointed to the under-representation of Malays in public universities and in top positions in the Singapore Armed Forces as reasons why "the issue of equity is still lingering in the minds of the Malays".

'Instil confidence that Govt is for the people'
By Leonard Lim, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

THE need to instil in Singaporeans the confidence that political leaders have their interests at heart, whatever the circumstances, was underlined by Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC) yesterday.

To him, re-looking the People's Action Party's long-held view of self-reliance may help.

The first of eight MPs to speak on the Population White Paper, he said: "We must give greater security to Singaporeans for them to feel that whatever hand life deals them, the government of the day is for them."

Presently, this means the needy must continue to be subsidised and infrastructure built ahead of demand, to avoid the bottlenecks that plague the country today.

But in the future, with the prospect of the well-heeled entrenching themselves and making it harder for the less well-off to move up the social ladder, the Government must ensure more is done for the poor and needy. The ruling party, he suggested, has to examine its long-held "bias" against welfarism, and see if this can fit into the Singapore of the future.

Posing a series of questions to set out the issues to ponder on, Mr Seah, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, said: "What if (success) is because both your parents are rich, and can afford $1,000 in tuition each month?

"What if your grades are good, not because you work any harder, but because you are chauffeured to school every day and back?

"What if, no matter how many times you tried, how hard you worked, you never made your business work?"

The Government does not always know best, he acknowledged. "It may only know what is efficient, what is rational, what costs the most, or the least."

Sometimes, he pointed out, it is right to do what the people want. "Not because we think it is right, but because they do."

The Government must resist the "self-righteous, sanctimonious chant that 'We do what is right, rather than what is popular'", he said.

He also called for a rethink of some of the White Paper's assumptions and urged policymakers to review it, if needed. His deepest concern was the ratio of citizens to foreigners; this is fewer than two Singaporeans to one foreigner now. In future, this may become fewer than 1.5 to one.

"I hope the ratio can be maintained at current levels and not decline further by 2030," he said.

"We do need to do more to have more citizens. Not just by getting new citizens in, but also by getting our people to get married, and getting married couples to have more children."

With more than 40 MPs from the PAP and the opposition set to speak over the week, he called for a cool-headed debate. "Let us all focus on the outcomes that the paper seeks to achieve. By all means, raise ideas and suggestions and not simply criticise for the sake of scoring points."

SOME SUGGESTIONS

"The current integration programme has not been as effective as we desired. For better integration, more social gatherings and activities can be organised to promote better communications and understanding between local and new citizens."
- Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio GRC), on reviewing the programme to integrate new citizens

"Many consider the current Employment Pass system somewhat liberal in its assessment of foreigners vying for attractive PMET jobs... Could we ensure employers invest to train Singaporeans for good jobs in order (for the employers) to qualify for Employment Pass for foreign PMETs?"
- Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast GRC), on two-thirds of Singaporeans becoming professionals, managers, engineers and technicians in 2030

"A further concession to the foreign domestic worker levy, or better still, a waiver of the levy altogether, will be useful especially for households where both husband and wife are working."
- Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio GRC), on encouraging parenthood, on top of a reduced levy of $170 a month that parents with children below 12 years old enjoy

Expect this debate to be different

Confusion abounds over population White Paper; MPs admit misgivings

By Chua Mui Hoong, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

SELDOM has a parliamentary debate been carried out amidst such confusion - and criticism - even before a single word is uttered.

But such is the reaction to the White Paper on population released last week, that even several People's Action Party (PAP) MPs admitted to misgivings.

The White Paper on Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore had laid out a road map of the Government's proposal on how to cope with an ageing population: by allowing for moderate immigration that would see the workforce growth slow from the 3.3 per cent of the last 30 years, to about 1 to 2 per cent for the rest of this decade, and then to 1 per cent from 2021 to 2030.

The White Paper also laid out infrastructure plans to cope with an anticipated population of 6.5 to 6.9 million by 2030.

Many people were fixated on the 6.9 million figure, asking how an already overcrowded Singapore of 5.3 million today would cope with that number in 17 years.

Most of all, confusion reigned over what the 6.9 million represented. As PAP MP Seng Han Thong asked pithily: Was the 6.9 million a worst case, best case or just-in-case scenario?

He noted that National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan had called it worst case - but a booming economy that can absorb a large number of external workers can't be such a bad thing - so should it be a "best case" scenario instead? Or perhaps it was a "just-in-case" scenario - better to over-provide than under-provide and have land use, transport and housing options able to cater to up to 6.9 million?

So much confusion reigned that some people have been asking in all seriousness if the White Paper is just a policy paper in draft form, to be debated and then revised after the parliamentary debate.

Or perhaps the 6.9 million figure was just a "kite" flown to test reactions, and the Government would later say, actually, six million is enough?

Judging from Day 1 of the debate, that is just wishful thinking.

Moving the motion asking the House to endorse the White Paper, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean did shed light on some of the swirling doubt: the 6.9 million figure is used to prepare infrastructure plans. It is not a Government target. Neither is the Government making a decision on the population figure it wants.

Why the haste over the White Paper - why table it now?

Mr Teo explained that Singapore is ageing rapidly. "Japan moved from an ageing population as defined by the World Health Organisation where 7 per cent are over 65, to an aged population where 14 per cent are over 65, in 24 years. This is much faster than Italy, which took 61 years, Sweden 85 years, and France 115 years. So Japan took 24 years. Singapore will age even faster, taking just 18 years to make the same transition. We are projected to be an 'aged' population by 2016."

The PAP appears to be in business-as-usual mode in tabling a White Paper it wants Parliament to endorse in five days. In the past, MPs would speak heatedly on concerns raised, before endorsing the paper. Singaporeans may grumble, and then accept it and move on. But this White Paper is different.

For one, it has tremendous impact on the lives of every Singaporean - and his children and grandchildren, in a real, concrete, day- to-day way. Few policy papers will have such widespread impact.

Two, there is a perception of undue haste about this debate. Even PAP MP Arthur Fong confessed to feeling uncomfortable at the pace of discussion, pointing out there was "national anxiety and angst" and "little buy-in" on its proposals.

Three, even PAP MPs who supported the motion were critical about fairly pivotal aspects of it. Many wanted to see more done for Singaporeans, before taking in more immigrants and migrant workers.

PAP MP Seah Kian Peng, who led the backbenchers' response to the motion, had "severe" reservations about diluting the proportion of Singaporeans in the population mix from 62 to 55 per cent in 2030.

A fourth and critical reason why debate on this White Paper is different: Because the opposition Workers' Party (WP) is proposing a serious alternative.

After the swearing-in of Punggol East MP Lee Li Lian yesterday, the WP now has seven elected MPs and two Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) in Parliament. Chairman Sylvia Lim led the party's opposition to the paper, saying Singaporeans' identity would be "put at peril" by it.

She proposed the WP's alternative: a population of 5.9 million and growth rate 0.5 to 1 percentage point lower than the 2 to 3 per cent projected by the PAP.

Rather than bring in many migrants, she suggested tapping indigenous labour such as women and the elderly and foreign spouses of Singaporeans.

Her WP colleague, Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap, urged more efforts on pro-fertility policies, rather than pro-immigration ones to boost the population. Other WP MPs speaking this week will flesh out the WP ideas.

After the Aljunied GRC victories in May 2011, Hougang in 2012 and Punggol East in 2013, the WP is on a winning streak with electable candidates. It has also attracted volunteers who presumably help give inputs to craft its party policy proposals.

The WP's last major alternative proposal to a PAP policy - on ministerial salary - came unstuck when it proved unable to back its numbers.

But this time, the broad strokes of its position - slower growth that can be sustained with minimal immigration - is similar to proposals spelt out by economists like Mr Yeoh Lam Keong, whose ideas gain easy traction online and among Singapore's socially-conscious intelligentsia. The WP alternative will thus appear viable.

Mr Teo did not respond to the WP proposals yesterday, but it is likely that WP MPs can expect challenges to its policy alternative in the next few days.

As the debate unfolds in the House, MPs should be mindful that the real debate and battle will be won outside, in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans following the debate.

MOM mulls new body to tackle workplace disputes
Intermediary would address non-statutory complaints, avoiding need to go to court

By Ashley Chia, TODAY, 5 Feb 2013

The Ministry of Manpower is looking at setting up an intermediary body to address complaints of unfair workplace practices — such as contractual disputes — that do not run afoul of the law, as part of its review of the Employment Act.

Such complaints can be dealt with, without having to go to the civil courts or the Industrial Arbitration Court — as is the existing practice, Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin told Parliament yesterday.

“This is something we will go through consultation and gather suggestions and ideas,” Mr Tan said. He also reiterated the need for cooperation between the Government, employers and the unions, in the aftermath of November’s illegal strike by some SMRT bus drivers from China. Nevertheless, he stressed that tripartism — the Republic’s much-vaunted approach to industrial relations — alone cannot ensure workers are given fair contracts.

Explaining that it is “difficult” to “legislate for employers to learn to be fair”, Mr Tan said: “What we want to make sure is that we do not want to be intrusive ... we need to be careful not to overdo it ... but where it’s statutory and where it’s required for the Government to step in to implement laws and regulations, that’s something we should do.”

A total of 171 SMRT bus drivers had failed to report for duty on Nov 26 last year in a protest over pay and living conditions.

Several Members of Parliament (MPs) had tabled questions on the episode— the first strike in 26 years — including Tampines GRC MP Irene Ng, who asked, among other things, whether the illegal strike “is a wake-up call for tripartism” and what lessons can be drawn to ensure that low-wage workers will be treated fairly by employers.

Mr Tan noted that unfair workplace practices concern not only Singaporean and foreign low-wage workers but also junior professionals, managers and executives.

However, the Government can only step in when employers breach regulations, such as not ensuring that their foreign employees have “acceptable accommodation”.

The Ministry of Manpower (MOM) conducted about 3,000 inspections last year to detect “potential breaches” of the Employment Act and Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, and more than 850 inspections of premises used as foreign worker dormitories. More than 350 employers were prosecuted last year.

Responding to some MPs’ concerns about foreign workers being exploited under contracts that were signed overseas, Mr Tan said that these contracts was “something of a concern”.

He added that the Singapore authorities “don’t have the remit to actually go upstream and govern” such contracts, as the different jurisdictions remain a “challenge”.

To address this, the MOM issues an In-Principle Approval (IPA) letter to foreign workers who are successful in their applications for an Employment Pass. The letter states all the details — such as job requirements and contractual terms — that were submitted during the time of application.

If the details differ from what were promised by their agents, foreign workers can “raise alarm bells” and seek some recourse at that stage, Mr Tan said.

Non-profit organisations also play a “useful bridging role”, he said. Between 2011 and the end of last year, the MOM received more than 900 case referrals from Transient Workers Count Too and the Humanitarian Organisation for Migrant Economics.

The Migrant Workers’ Centre also assisted about 3,000 foreign workers by solving their employment grievances and providing interim humanitarian assistance such as accommodation and food.

Three-quarters of SMRT's PRC drivers now union members: Lim Swee Say
By Jermyn Chow, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

A MAJORITY of SMRT bus drivers from China have now signed up to join the labour union, said labour chief Lim Swee Say in Parliament yesterday.

Mr Lim said that the joint efforts of the unions and SMRT to reach out to the drivers have led some three-quarters of the transport operator's 400 People's Republic of China (PRC) drivers to become union members.

Prior to the Nov 26 strike involving 171 PRC drivers, less than 5 per cent of the firm's PRC drivers were unionised.

He added that more than 90 per cent of bus operator SBS Transit's 600 bus drivers from China are already union members. And of the 1.2 million foreign workers here, about 100,000 are unionised, he said.

The role of unions in protecting the rights of foreign workers was a key concern for several MPs yesterday during a debate on the SMRT saga.

Apart from Mr Lim, Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin also weighed in on the matter, stressing that unions do look out for foreign workers.

"I've very little doubt that the unions take this responsibility in representing all their workers seriously, meaning that if there are concerns raised by the foreign workers, even though they may form the minority, these things will be registered and will be brought upstream," Mr Tan said, in response to a question from Nominated MP Laurence Lien.

Mr Lien had asked if foreign workers, who form a minority in the union, are adequately represented.

Mr Tan reiterated that employers and unions believe that open and direct communication between bosses and their employees is key to harmonious industrial relations.

He said that the second stage of the review of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act will continue later this year.

This is aimed at better protecting the well-being of workers, as well as to "ensure an equitable balance of rights and responsibilities between employers and workers".

He also disclosed that his ministry is studying whether foreign workers can be allowed to change employers in "instances where there has been a genuine mismatch in expectations".

KKH baby mix-up the only reported incident in last 10 years: health minister

Channel NewsAsia, 4 Feb 2013

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong told Parliament the recent baby mix-up at KK Women's and Children's Hospital (KKH) is the only reported incident in the last ten years.

Giving a detailed account of how the mix-up occurred in 2012, Mr Gan said the error came about when two babies were removed from their cots at the same time and were returned without counter-checking their identity tags.

In addition to recommendations by a review committee, Mr Gan said regular and ad-hoc audits will be carried out.

Mr Gan said: "KKH's Patient Safety Committee will step up its oversight of patient safety and ensure supervision and compliance of protocols by staff. KKH will also undertake a comprehensive review of its quality assurance framework to further enhance patient safety. We will learn from this incident.

"It should be a reminder to all healthcare institutions in Singapore, both public and private, to strengthen their quality assurance programmes to improve patient safety and outcomes."

Medisave does not cover purchase of hearing aids, says health minister

Channel NewsAsia, 4 Feb 2013

About 8,600 elderly Singaporeans suffered from hearing impairment and sought treatment in 2012, compared to 6,800 cases attended to by hospitals in 2010.

Health Minister Gan Kim Yong revealed these figures in Parliament on Monday in response to a question by Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, MP for Nee Soon GRC.

Of the 8,600 seniors, Mr Gan said about 1,500 or 17 per cent needed a hearing aid and went through a hearing aid evaluation test.

About 800 seniors took up the use of these hearing aids, which cost about $1,000 to $1,500.

But Mr Gan said Medisave does not cover this.

"Medisave coverage does not extend to the purchase of hearing aid because Medisave is primarily meant to support large hospitalisation bills. We need to be careful not to over expand the use of Medisave so that Singaporeans will still have enough in their Medisave to cover their hospitalisation expenses. To help the low-income elderly, the Centre for Enabled Living (CEL) has a Special Assistance Fund that provides subsidy for such hearing aids," he said.

SMC panel to complete review 'in six months'

By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

THE review committee appointed by the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to look into doctors' disciplinary proceedings is expected to finish its work in about six months, said Health Minister Gan Kim Yong yesterday.

The committee, made up of senior doctors and lawyers, will review existing frameworks for the proceedings and "optimise and strengthen" them, said Mr Gan in a reply to Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC).

The aim is for disciplinary matters to be dealt with in a "just and expeditious manner", he added.

The SMC said it would set up the committee last October after the High Court overturned its guilty verdict against aesthetic doctor Low Chai Ling for using medicine whose effectiveness has not been scientifically proven.

The court also released a 54-page judgment criticising the way Dr Low's disciplinary hearing had been carried out.

Yesterday, Mr Gan said the disciplinary processes and requirements for doctors are set out in the Medical Registration Act.

Organisations like the Complaints Committee and disciplinary tribunals must comply with the Act and they carry out their proceedings and deliberations independently of the SMC council, he said.

Director of Medical Services and SMC registrar K. Satku wrote to all doctors last month to clarify the SMC's disciplinary processes, said Mr Gan, adding that health-care professionals must play their part to ensure patients receive "the best care possible".

Dr Janil also asked Mr Gan for his views on the balance between internal and external regulation of the medical profession.

Replying, Mr Gan said the Act was amended in 2010 to include more external bodies. For instance, a legally trained person can now chair a medical disciplinary hearing.

But the changes will need time to take effect, he added, as many current cases began before the change in the law and so, they have to be heard under the old framework.

WP's Singh responds to Shanmugam's challenge over UN vote

By Andrea Ong, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

WORKERS' Party MP Pritam Singh yesterday responded to an earlier challenge by Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam on Singapore's decision to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Palestine.

In a written reply last month, Mr Shanmugam asked Mr Singh (Aljunied GRC) to state if he believed a change in Singapore's voting position would make the country more secure, adding he would take "serious note" of his views.

Mr Singh had asked if Singapore's abstention on the UN vote, which elevated Palestine to a non-member observer state, increases its vulnerability to terrorists sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

Yesterday, Mr Singh said the minister's reply explaining why Singapore chose to abstain showed the country was "pro-peace" rather than "pro-Israel".

"It also reduces my own concern that Singapore's decision to abstain made us insecure."

Mr Singh said it was "noteworthy" that Mr Shanmugam's reply states that Singapore sees Israel and Palestine as having legitimate rights and shared responsibilities.

He also welcomed the statement that Singapore does not support Israel's activities that contravene international law, including its settlement activities in the occupied territories.

Singapore has consistently voted in favour of all the approximately 19 resolutions on Palestine-related issues tabled in the UN General Assembly annually, said Mr Shanmugam in his reply.

However, Mr Singh said Singapore's recent decision to abstain "is more likely to be remembered than our previous voting patterns" because of the weight and profile of the resolution to elevate Palestine's international status.

"Singapore's even-handed position sharing the desires of the Palestinians for an independent state and that of Israel for its security may have been misunderstood by some Singaporeans in favour of the latter," he said.

He urged the Foreign Ministry to consider profiling its stance on Palestine and other controversial issues "front and centre", before the public raised concerns, to prevent misunderstanding.

Replying yesterday, Mr Shanmugam said his ministry has set out its position publicly and regularly, but would take note of Mr Singh's suggestion.

"I thank the honourable Member for accepting that our position is even-handed, welcoming it and recognising it as pro-peace," he added.

Another 300,000 people may qualify for legal aid

Means test remains unchanged but deductibles have been increased
By Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

ABOUT 300,000 more people stand to qualify for legal aid after changes in the law to relax requirements for such inexpensive help were passed in Parliament yesterday.

While the test remains unchanged - those who qualify must have an annual disposable income and disposable assets each of $10,000 or less - the deductibles have been increased.

For instance, the amount applicants can deduct as living expenses for themselves, their spouse or dependants has been raised to $6,000 each. This is an increase from $4,500 for his own expenses, and $3,500 each for his spouse's and dependants'.

New deductibles were also created for calculating disposable capital, such as surrender value of life insurance policies of up to $46,000, and entire Central Provident Fund investments.

Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah, who introduced the Legal Aid and Advice (Amendment) Bill for debate, said the changes to means testing will result in one out of four Singapore residents qualifying for legal aid, up from the current 17 per cent.

In addition, the director for legal aid will have greater discretion to relax the means test for family cases involving children or protection orders.

The changes also seek to improve the general administration of legal aid. In her speech at the start of the debate, Ms Indranee said the changes reaffirmed "the Government's commitment to providing access to justice for the most needy amongst us".

Several MPs rose to speak, with many seeking even greater flexibility.

While Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) supported the Bill, he asked if means testing could be more flexible, a point also raised by Mr Edwin Tong (Moulmein-Kallang GRC).

Responding, Ms Indranee noted that the law allows for the director for legal aid to have some discretion, but added that "at the same time, discretion cannot be unfettered because, if so, it would not be transparent".

Nominated MP Eugene Tan asked why Singaporeans and permanent residents (PRs) are treated equally when it comes to legal aid and whether the threshold for PRs to qualify should be higher.

Ms Indranee said there is already a differentiation between the two: While means testing for both groups is the same, PRs are charged a higher contribution fee when they are granted legal aid.

On giving legal aid for criminal cases, she said the Government already funds the Legal Assistance Scheme for Capital Offences and makes contributions to the Law Society's Pro Bono Services Office, which runs the criminal legal aid scheme.

Ms Indranee also noted that support from the legal community and pro bono services was important.

"This is very much to be encouraged and it's heartening in particular to see the private lawyers coming forward to do this," she said.

Range for PSLE median scores

ABOUT 80 points separate the median PSLE scores of the best performing and worst performing primary schools last year, said Education Minister Heng Swee Keat as he urged people not to read too much into the scores.

The range is from 160 to 240. If students from the Gifted Education Programme were included, the highest median score goes up to 247, he added, in a written reply to Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC).

Mr Nair had asked for the highest and lowest median scores.

Mr Heng pointed out, however, that complex factors affect performance and said the school with the lowest median also had several students who were in the top 10 per cent of the PSLE cohort.

He added that schools help students develop in different ways and they should not be judged just on test scores.

$2.3b in Baby Bonus paid out since 2001

MORE than 310,000 children have received a cash gift and over 240,000 have opened a Child Development Account (CDA), in which savings are matched by the Government dollar-for-dollar, since 2001.

All in, $2.31 billion had been disbursed through the Baby Bonus scheme, said Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing in a written reply to Mr Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap (Aljunied GRC).

In 2011, the top three uses of the cash gift were child-related expenses such as milk powder and diapers, vaccinations and hospital expenses.

The top three uses of CDA monies were for childcare centres, kindergartens and health-care institutions.

Resource use of 26 large-scale projects

SINCE 2010, the Finance Ministry has assessed the management of 26 large-scale projects to ensure they make the most efficient use of resources, said Minister of State Josephine Teo yesterday.

These were put through the "Gateway Process", during which the projects' concepts and designs are reviewed at a series of "gates" said Mrs Teo.

She was replying to Nominated MP Laurence Lien on the measures to ensure such large projects are value for money.

In addition, the Centre for Public Project Management (CP2M) was set up in 2011 to build up public sector expertise in building design and project management, said Mrs Teo.

One success story is the Singapore University of Technology and Design.

The CP2M team recommended that its tennis court be relocated to the roof and a service driveway be given a different route.

The changes reduced the campus footprint and freed land for other uses, she said.

PRs with HDB flats and private homes

ABOUT 400 Housing Board flats are owned by permanent residents (PRs) who also own private property.

These owners do not live in their HDB flats, and are most likely living in their private homes.

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan disclosed the figures yesterday, in a written reply to Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC).

Mr Nair also asked what would happen in cases where PRs own HDB flats with tenancy agreements that run beyond the six-month deadline given for them to sell their flat.

A new rule requires PRs to sell their HDB flats within six months of buying a private property.

Mr Khaw said these PRs with subletting arrangements will have to time their property purchases "to meet the stipulated timeframe" for selling their HDB flats.

DPM Teo's parliamentary speech on Population White Paper

February 5, 2013, 8:21 pm

≫ Next: The future of wages in S'pore

≪ Previous: Parliament Highlights - 4 Feb 2013

$

0

0

Opening speech by Deputy Prime Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs Mr Teo Chee Hean at the Parliamentary debate on Population White Paper, 4 Feb 2013

DPM Teo Chee Hean's Opening Speech at the Parliamentary Debate on Population White Paper, 4th February 2013 from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

A) INTRODUCTION

1. Madam Speaker, I beg to move: 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.

2. Since March 2012, we have engaged over 2,200 Singaporeans and representatives from various groups, and also received 2,500 pieces of feedback on this important issue of population. All Members of this House were also invited to send in their views and suggestions.

3. Since we released the White Paper on 29 January, much of the attention and public reactions have been focused on the population projection for 2030. Singaporeans have expressed concerns over job competition, having too many foreigners, and overcrowding. Many have asked whether we should do more to encourage marriage and parenthood and slow down our pace of life. These are all heartfelt and important concerns which Singaporeans have today, and which we also worry about for our future.

4. Indeed, these were the issues which we grappled with as we prepared the White Paper. Allow me to take a step back, Madam, and focus on why we have prepared the White Paper, the objectives and the balance that we are trying to achieve.



Why did we prepare the White Paper? What are we trying to achieve? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

B) WHY DID WE PREPARE THE WHITE PAPER? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

5. We faced a series of unprecedented crises in the last decade: 9/11 in 2001, SARS in 2003, and the global financial crisis of 2008. They caused wide swings which required extra-ordinary responses to cushion the impact on Singaporeans. By working together, we kept our society cohesive, stabilized the economy, saved Singaporeans’ jobs and emerged stronger as a community. However, the responses we took threw our planning out of gear.

6. In particular, the growth in foreign workforce, total population, infrastructure and housing were not aligned. This contributed to the anxiety, crowdedness, integration problems, and the daily inconveniences faced by Singaporeans today. To address these issues, individual ministries have been taking steps to reduce the intake of PRs, tighten on foreign workers, boost housing supply and improve transportation. But we now needed to review all these holistically.

7. The White Paper therefore sets out to take a re-look at all these issues, balance the different needs and constraints, and chart a roadmap to guide future policy. The White Paper is fundamentally for the benefit of all Singaporeans – ourselves, our children, and their children. To make sure that Singaporeans continue to live in a harmonious society, with strong supportive families, good jobs, and a good living environment.

8. We looked at our past population and workforce trajectory, and concluded that we could not continue growing at those rates. Over the past three decades, our total population had been growing at an average of 2.5% per year, and our workforce at 3.3% per year. These growth rates were simply not sustainable for the coming years, because our foreign workforce and population would increase beyond our constraints.

9. I would like to emphasise two points at the outset.

10. The first point is that the White Paper is proposing a major shift – a significant slow-down in our rate of workforce and population growth compared to the path that we were on. Up to 2020, we will be slowing down the rate of workforce growth to 1% to 2%. This is half of what it was before. Beyond that, the White Paper projects a further reduction to about 1% per year. This is a significant reduction, just a third of what it was before. Population growth rate is also projected to drop to about half the historical growth rate. I will go into this in more detail later in my speech.

11. Up to 2020, the roadmap in the White Paper is clearer. But beyond 2020 till 2030, the projection has a wider uncertainty range of 6.5 to 6.9 million.

12. This is the second point I would like to emphasise. We are not deciding now on the population trajectory beyond 2020. Nor are we deciding that we will have a population of 6.9 million in 2030. We are using this figure (which is at the high end of the 6.5 to 6.9 million range) only to prepare infrastructure plans.

13. This population range up to 2030 provides a common set of parameters so that we can make long term plans that will be sufficient to cater even to the high end of possible populations. This is especially important for infrastructure plans that may take many years to implement, and once built will be there for decades. If we underprovide in our Land Use and infrastructure plans now, Singaporeans will have less flexibility in the future, and if things turn out unexpectedly, we will face bottlenecks and constraints. In fact, these are precisely the problems that we are facing today. We do not want to repeat these scenarios by under-providing.

14. What the population will actually be in 2030 will depend on the needs of Singaporeans, and the decisions we make on economic and workforce policy along the way. We hope that with restructuring and productivity gains, with Singaporeans living healthier and longer and therefore choosing to remain in the workforce longer, and more women joining the workforce, our population will not reach 6.9 million. It is the ability to meet the needs of Singaporeans and provide a good quality of life that is the driver. That is our objective, and not the numbers per se. If we are able to achieve this with a smaller population, whether 6.5m or lower, there is no reason to go higher. But it is prudent to plan our infrastructure for the upper end of the range, so that we do not get caught out.

15. Furthermore, this is not a one-off exercise. Every few years, we should look at our plans again, decide the path we actually take, especially beyond 2020, and make changes to refine the plan, based on our needs, and as domestic and external circumstances change.

16. Though it is important for me to make these two points at the outset, we have actually jumped several important steps to the outcome. It would be helpful to start at the beginning. And where is the beginning? The beginning is our Singaporean core. During our engagement sessions, as we heard their views and suggestions, hopes and concerns, Singaporeans asked us several key questions. These questions remained on our minds as we developed the White Paper. Let me try to answer these questions.



Is our ageing and shrinking citizen population really such an urgent issue? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

C) IS OUR AGING AND SHRINKING CITIZEN POPULATION REALLY SUCH AN URGENT ISSUE?

17. First, is our aging and shrinking citizen population really such an urgent issue? Can’t we just wait a few more years before we deal with it? The issue is indeed upon us, and is an issue we need to deal with now.

18. Last year, our first cohort of Baby Boomers, those born after the Second World War in 1947, turned 65. Between now and 2030, over 900,000 Baby Boomers – or more than a quarter of our present citizen population – will enter their silver years.

19. By 2025, our citizen population will start to shrink if we do nothing. Let me explain what the trends mean. At a Total Fertility Rate of 1.2, for every 100 Singaporeans in this generation, there will be 60 Singaporeans in the next generation, and only 36 in the generation after that. And this poses a huge challenge to the sustainability of our Singaporean core population.

20. What does this mean for the lives of Singaporeans? For our seniors, many will continue to live active, healthy lives. But as age catches up, they and their families will want the assurance that their needs can be met, and that there will be enough care-givers and health workers to look after them.

21. Today, our Singaporean workforce is still growing, slowly. But as our Baby Boomers retire, and fewer school leavers enter the workforce, our citizen workforce will start shrinking by 2020.

22. What does this mean? Today, we have 5.9 working-age citizens for each citizen aged 65 and above. 5.9, so nearly 6. By 2030, this will fall to 2.1, or roughly one-third. This is about half the average of 4.1 for the OECD countries in 2010. We can mitigate this by creating more opportunities for Singaporeans to continue working beyond the current retirement age. But, the support ratio will still fall significantly.

23. What does this mean for Singaporeans? Higher taxes on those working, to fund subsidised healthcare for a much larger number of seniors. Slower business activity and less investment in new sectors leading to fewer job and career opportunities. Young Singaporeans may decide to leave for more exciting opportunities in other growing cities. This would hollow out our population and workforce further. This is a real worry not just on a national level, but for parents too who wonder whether their children will go abroad in search of better opportunities, and they will be left here alone here during their silver years.

24. Take Japan as an example. In 2011, 23.3 percent of Japan’s population was aged 65 years and above – the highest in the world. One statistic jumped out at me. In 2011, for the first time, Japan’s largest diaper maker, Unicharm Corporation, reported that it sold more adult diapers in Japan than baby diapers.

25. Japan moved from an aging population as defined by the World Health Organisation where 7% are over 65, to an aged population where 14% are over 65, in 24 years. This is much faster than Italy, which took 61 years, Sweden 85 years, and France 115 years. So Japan took 24 years. Singapore will age even faster, taking just 18 years to make the same transition. We are projected to be an “aged” population by 2016.

26. Japan’s population started falling in 2005, and is expected to fall by one million people every year in the coming decades. The Japanese population will shrink by around 30 percent by 2060, with 40% above the age of 65. The social and economic implications are enormous.

27. Singapore is a much smaller country with a much smaller population and economy. If we do not take decisive actions now to sustain our Singaporean core population, we will decline more quickly and sharply than Japan.



How do we sustain our Singaporean population? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

D) HOW DO WE SUSTAIN OUR SINGAPOREAN POPULATION?

28. This leads us to our second question: How do we sustain our Singaporean core population?

29. The best and most fundamental way is to encourage Singaporeans to start families. So, regardless of whatever else we do, encouraging marriage and parenthood, bringing up children must remain a key priority. This is not just for tackling our population challenge, but to continue to have strong families, and the fulfilment and happiness that come from having families.

30. We introduced a Marriage & Parenthood Package in 2001. Last month, we announced the latest enhancements to the Package, taking on board the feedback that we received from Singaporeans over the past year. I would like to highlight two changes. Extending MediShield coverage to babies born with congenital and neonatal conditions, reflects the more caring and inclusive society we want to be, and provides important assurance to couples wanting to have children. The introduction of Paternity Leave signals that we should adopt new attitudes and mindsets towards shared parental responsibilities.

31. Since 2001, the families of about 350,000 Singaporean children have benefitted from the Package. The latest enhancements will benefit more families. 

32. However, to support our families, we need the community, employers, extended families and individual Singaporeans to foster a pro-family culture in our whole society.

33. In the short term, I hope our birth rate can increase to at least 1.4 or 1.5, which was our birth rate not so long ago, around the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Beyond that, we would like to see the birth rate rise above 1.5, perhaps to the replacement rate of 2.1, but it will take time, and we will need all Singaporeans to do their part to make it happen.

34. So, to prevent our Singaporean core from shrinking and ageing rapidly, we will need to augment our population with new citizens and permanent residents. A significant number of Singaporeans are themselves marrying non-Singaporeans, reflecting the more globalised nature of interactions between people today. About 40% of Singaporean marriages each year are between a Singaporean and a nonSingaporean, numbering some 9,000 in 2011.

35. Singapore has historically been an immigrant society, and has benefitted from the diversity and energy that new citizens bring. Several colleagues in this House also have close new citizen family connections.

36. We should continue to welcome immigrants who can contribute to Singapore, share our values and integrate into our society. Taking in younger immigrants will supplement the smaller cohorts of younger Singaporeans born since the 1980s, and balance the ageing of our citizen population. Taking in between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens each year is about equivalent to having a stable and sustainable Singapore citizen core population with a total fertility rate of 2.1. We have in fact been taking in new citizens at this controlled rate, averaging 19,000 per year over the past five years. We will review this immigration rate from time to time, depending on our birth rates, as well as the quality of applicants, and our changing needs. If we are able to raise our birth rates, we can eventually take in fewer immigrants. But a baby born today will only be 20 years old in 20 years’ time.

37. Permanent Residents are also counted as part of our resident population. They form a pool of potential new citizens who have a longer-term commitment to Singapore, but are not yet ready for citizenship. We have tightened up significantly on the number of PRs granted each year, down from a high of 79,000 new PRs in 2008 to about 30,000 each year for the past three years. We plan to maintain the current rate. This means that the PR population will remain stable, where it is, at between 0.5 and 0.6 million.

38. There are concerns that if we take in too many new immigrants, Singaporeans may increasingly feel like strangers in our own land. Thus, it is important for new citizens and PRs to fit into our society. Most new immigrants come from similar ethnic backgrounds as Singaporeans, but some may take time to adapt to our norms, culture and values. We will continue to encourage and help new citizens and their children to integrate into our society, adapt to our way of life, becoming more like us over time. I hope that more Singaporeans will also help foster stronger bonds in our community. This will help to strengthen our Singaporean core – not just in numbers, but more importantly, also in spirit.

39. With a careful balance of parenthood measures and controlled number of new citizens, our core population of Singaporean citizens will stabilise around 3.6 to 3.8 million in 2030, similar to the number if we had replaced ourselves fully. If we maintained our current birth rates and with no immigration, our Singaporean core population would eventually shrink sharply below today’s 3.3m. This was the first, and most important, part of the White Paper. To ensure that our Singaporean population is sustainable and stable.



Is this Government pro-Singaporean or pro-foreigner? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

E) IS THIS GOVERNMENT PRO-SINGAPOREAN OR PRO-FOREIGNER?

40. After tackling the key issue of having a sustainable Singapore citizen core population, we then looked at what is required to take care of Singaporeans’ changing social and economic needs. Some have pointed out that the proportion of Singapore citizens in our total population will fall from just under 62% today to perhaps 55% by 2030, and asked: Is this Government pro-Singaporean or proforeigner? Why do we need foreigners working in Singapore? Why can’t we let Singaporeans take up all the jobs in Singapore?

41. Having foreigners here on work passes must be for the purpose of meeting Singaporeans’ needs and benefitting them, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

42. Let us look at who these non-resident foreigners will be. The largest group, the majority, will continue to be those on work permits who do jobs and provide services that Singaporeans need, but do not want to do ourselves.

43. As Singaporeans become increasingly better educated and upgrade their skills, they will have higher job aspirations. Singaporeans in non-Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technical (PMET) jobs will also be higher skilled, but their numbers will fall by 200,000 by 2030. This is why we need more foreign work pass holders to take up more of the lower-skilled jobs, even as we upgrade industries and improve productivity. We will continue to take care of Singaporeans through upskilling programmes and Workfare, while imposing foreign worker levies and dependency ratios.

44. Let us be clear. These foreign workers are here to support Singaporeans’ needs. For example, we expect to need significantly more healthcare, eldercare and domestic services workers to support our ageing population and working families. A visit to any nursing home will show you that. They build our homes, rail lines and roads, and clean our housing estates. They thus enable Singaporeans to enjoy good social and municipal services while moderating the cost of these services, contribute to our quality of life, and allow more Singaporeans themselves to be in the workforce. But even so, the numbers of foreign workers will be controlled and their overall growth rate significantly reduced in the coming years. So, industries currently dependent on foreign workers will have to learn to do more with less.

45. While the number of Singaporeans in non-PMET jobs falls, the number of Singaporeans in PMET jobs is expected to rise by 400,000 to about 1.25 million by 2030, compared to 850,000 today. Two-thirds of Singaporeans in the workforce will hold PMET jobs in 2030, compared to about half today.

46. To sustain such a high ratio of PMET jobs among Singaporeans, we need a dynamic economy and businesses that produce goods and services not just for Singapore and the Singapore market, but for the region and the world.

47. Companies need foreign workers to complement the Singaporean core in our workforce, so that companies can pull together a diverse range of skills, backgrounds and experiences. These foreigners help companies to expand to regional and international markets, set up regional HQs in Singapore, or kick-start new high value-added sectors in Singapore. These new activities will provide more good job opportunities which Singaporeans can take up. But again, the work pass criteria will need to be more stringent. MOM has progressively tightened salary and qualification requirements for Employment Pass and S pass holders.

48. Those on work passes are here during their productive years, and return to their home countries after working here. Hence they help boost our ratio of working persons to retirees, but do not add to our retiree population.

49. With our aging population, our dependency ratio of working adults to seniors will fall to 2.1. By supplementing our Singaporean core workforce with foreign workers, we will be able to maintain a ratio of working persons to retirees of about 4 in 2030, similar to the OECD average today. This is based on our projections for significantly slower workforce growth, compared to our historic average. We are also able to adjust the numbers and types of foreign workers flexibly, depending on our changing needs.

50. We have heard concerns that there are jobs which Singaporeans want, but are instead going to foreigners. It is a fine balance. We need to allow companies to create the jobs, and to do so they may need a workforce supplemented by foreigners. But we must also ensure that Singaporeans will benefit from the good jobs. This is something we are looking into, and MOM will address Members’ concerns later in the Debate.



Is the Government pursuing growth at all costs? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

F) IS GOVERNMENT PURSUING GROWTH AT ALL COSTS?

51. Are we pursuing growth at all costs and simply importing foreign workers to drive that?

52. Let us look at two possible scenarios.

53. First, the “freeze” scenario, where foreign workforce numbers are frozen at where they are today. I can see some Members of the House, looking nervously at this prospect.

54. What will happen? Our economy is likely to be dislocated. Both local and international business groups have said that the White Paper’s proposal to halve the workforce growth will create a very tight manpower situation. A “freeze” will hurt businesses, investments and jobs for Singaporeans. Smaller companies may fold. International companies may pull out because they cannot find the right staff. If there are closures or pull outs, Singaporeans in these companies may lose their jobs. If we had operated under the “freeze” scenario last year, in 2012, EDB would not have been able to bring in $16 billion of foreign investments, which will create 18,600 new skilled jobs. The opportunity to build up a critical mass in sunrise industries with good jobs of the future, may pass us by. Our diploma holders and graduates may not be able to find challenging PMET jobs to meet their aspirations.

55. A freeze would also mean fewer workers to do the jobs that many Singaporeans do not want to do, such as construction and cleaning, to help build HDB flats and rail lines. We will also need additional foreign domestic workers to help look after our elderly parents or young children, so that more Singaporeans can go out to work.

56. Now, let us consider the other alternative, the “business as usual” scenario. Some business or industry associations would prefer it if we allowed the foreign workforce to grow as quickly as before. If we allowed this, our total population will grow well beyond 6.9 million, and well beyond our physical capacity in 2030.

57. So, neither of these extreme scenarios leads to desirable outcomes. And we don’t want either of these. This is why we have sought to strike a careful balance in terms of workforce growth. We are not proposing to “freeze”, nor to continue with “business as usual”, and we are certainly not proposing to grow at all costs.

58. We are proposing a significant change of gears in our development trajectory. For the rest of this decade, we plan for total workforce growth to be 1% to 2% per year, half of the 3.3% per year over the past 30 years. Beyond 2020, workforce growth is expected to slow further to about 1% per year.

59. Sustaining high productivity growth will also become harder, as our economy matures and ages. If we are able to achieve our ambitious stretch target of 2-3% productivity growth per year in this decade, and maintain overall workforce growth at 1% to 2%, we can expect GDP growth to average 3% to 4% up to 2020, though in good years, we may exceed that.

60. From 2020 to 2030, with workforce growth further slowing to about 1% per year, and productivity growth moderating to 1% to 2% per year, we may see GDP growth of between 2% and 3% per year from 2020 to 2030, depending on both internal and external circumstances.

61. This range of 2 to 3% growth converges with the mature economies in the OECD. It is less than half of the 5.6% average annual growth that we saw in the 2000s, and the typically 7% growth that we saw in the two decades prior to that. 

62. So we are certainly not pursuing growth at all costs, as some have mistakenly claimed. Instead, we have set our sights on high-quality, productivity-driven, sustainable growth that will help to create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans.



Will we be overcrowded? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

G) WILL WE BE OVERCROWDED?

63. Nonetheless, Singaporeans are understandably worried about how many people we can accommodate in our island home, given the current infrastructural constraints. Will Singapore be overcrowded?

64. To address the daily concerns of Singaporeans, we have stepped up development of public transport and housing. We have seen some initial results, and there will be further improvements in the next few years. Transport remains a particular concern.

65. The Ministry of Transport is implementing plans to add 800 new buses over 5 years, increasing capacity by 20%. We are opening one new section of MRT line every year for the next 5 years. The Downtown Line will begin to open from this year. We will continue to add more trains to reduce waiting time during the peak hours. And MOT is studying further steps to ease the strains that commuters feel today.

66. As we developed the Population White Paper, we worked closely with our planning and infrastructure agencies, to make sure that we could maintain a high quality living environment for Singaporeans.

67. Taking into consideration the various needs – to sustain our citizen population, and to meet the social and economic needs of our better educated workforce and an aging population – we arrived at a population planning range of 6.5 to 6.9 million. This is equivalent to a population growth rate of just over 1% per year from 2020 to 2030.

68. Madam, we are not asking Parliament to decide on reaching a population of 6.5 million, let alone 6.9 million. Rather, we have laid out the various needs and considerations, and are making provisions for the future. We need population projections to make infrastructure plans. Such a planning basis will allow infrastructure, which could take a decade to plan and build, and which would last several decades after that, to be properly located and sized. This is to give decision makers sufficient capacity and flexibility when they make decisions on policy settings in the future.

69. MND and MOT have laid out more fully the Land Use and infrastructure plans in Paper Misc. 1 of 2013 on “A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans”. These have received wide coverage in the media.

70. Even if our population were to reach 6.9 million one day, our population density for developable land will be about 13,700 persons per square km, still much lower than the population density of 22,000 in Hong Kong and 26,000 in Seoul.

71. With good planning, the additional facilities and improvement works will enable Singapore to support a larger, older population while alleviating the strains that we are currently facing. To avoid falling behind in our infrastructure again, we will plan well in advance, implement these plans ahead of demand, and build in a buffer where possible.



Why do we need to table this White Paper now? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

H) WHY DO WE NEED TO TABLE THIS WHITE PAPER NOW?

72. This takes me to another key question: Why are we tabling this White Paper now?

73. Demographic changes have very far-reaching implications for our society, our economy and our living environment. We have reached an important turning point where our citizen population will begin aging rapidly and shrinking if we do nothing. This is why over the past year we have released several consultation papers providing information on population and workforce and encouraged discussion and comments.

74. Indeed, we have been asked by many why we even need to do this. It would be easier and less controversial to ignore our demographic challenge, and avoid dealing with it. But we believe in giving Singaporeans the full picture. It is more responsible to surface the issues and plan ahead while we are able to do so. Hence the White Paper, which charts out a roadmap that carefully balances the various needs and constraints, so that we can plan ahead to prepare for the future not just for this generation, but also subsequent generations, of Singaporeans.

75. If we do too little to address our demographic challenge, we risk becoming a shrinking ageing society, and our young people may leave to seek more exciting opportunities elsewhere. But if we take in too many immigrants and foreign workers, we may weaken our social fabric and national identity. We need to strike a fine balance.

76. And if we get this right, we will be able to achieve our goal to have a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore, with the well-being and benefit of Singaporeans at the centre of all that we do.



Who are we Singaporeans? from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

I) WHO ARE WE SINGAPOREANS?

77. Madam Speaker, let me close with one last question: Who are we Singaporeans? Our forefathers came here from many lands, around the archipelago and further afield. Most Members would not have to go very far back in our own families to find somebody who came to Singapore from elsewhere and decided to sink roots here. They settled here, worked together for our future, and in the process evolved a set of shared values that allowed us to unite and achieve peace and progress together.

78. We are now moving into a new phase. The world is more globalised. We now have more Singaporeans living and working overseas, even as we have more foreigners living and working in Singapore. So, what does it mean to be Singaporean, and how do we retain our Singaporean identity?

79. We are Singaporean because of the common responsibility that we hold towards one another, because of the common hopes and dreams that we share with one another, because we are stakeholders and the protectors of the future of our country. These are what unite us and define us.

80. We feel proud to be Singaporeans because of what Singapore is and what Singapore stands for. No foreigner can share in this pride.

81. We feel sorrow when misfortune befalls one of our fellow Singaporeans, and display a generosity of spirit to our fellow Singaporeans.

82. We defend Singapore and Singaporeans, because we are the stakeholders of our country – and our families, our homes and our futures are here. No foreigner can feel the same way. We may help to ensure the safety of foreigners who are here in time of conflict, but we are not defending their families or their futures. We are defending ours. And that will never change.

83. We are Singaporean not just because of where we are born, but because of what we believe in, the values we live by, and a common desire to want to make our home, a better one.

84. The plans that we make are, and must always be, for the good of Singaporeans – today, tomorrow, and into the future. How to strengthen our cohesive society, with Singaporeans at the core. How to ensure that Singaporeans have good jobs in an increasingly competitive global economy. How to keep Singapore the best home for Singaporeans, even as other cities are becoming more attractive.

85. What will life be like in Singapore for Singaporeans by 2030? As a citizen in 2030, you will have good quality jobs and opportunities, have access to services to support your family needs, and enjoy a high quality living environment. As a student, you will have many opportunities to maximize your potential. As a working adult, you are likely to be holding a higher skilled job than today. Your home will be in one of the world’s most livable cities, with convenient access to recreational facilities, parks and green spaces, and good public transport. As a senior, you will have aged care and support facilities available in the community, and more beds in both acute and community hospitals, with sufficient staff to take care of you. Let’s strive together to realise the “Singapore promise” – a better life, a better tomorrow, for Singaporeans of all ages.

J) CONCLUSION

86. Madam Speaker, we have spent the past year taking in a diverse range of views, concerns and aspirations expressed by Singaporeans. All the views have been considered, though not all could be fully accommodated as some pull in opposite directions. We have tried to find a judicious balance in charting out our population roadmap for the future, with the well-being and benefit of Singaporeans at the core.

87. I hope Members of this House, and Singaporeans in general, will study the key considerations and support the recommendations of the White Paper as we work together to achieve our goal of A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore.

88. Madam Speaker, I would now like to call upon this House to endorse the White Paper on “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore” as the roadmap for Singapore’s population polices to address our demographic challenge, and the Miscellaneous Paper on “A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans” as the land use plan to support Singapore’s future population. I look forward to hearing the views of honourable Members during this Debate.

89. Madam Speaker, I beg to move. Question proposed.

The future of wages in S'pore

February 5, 2013, 10:48 pm

≫ Next: 9 foreign chambers oppose labour curbs

≪ Previous: DPM Teo's parliamentary speech on Population White Paper

$

0

0

The Government White Paper on Population released last week forecast a slowing workforce growth and a tightening of the supply of foreign workers. Where are Singaporean wage earnings heading in a tighter labour market, given the previous decade's wage trends?

By Hoon Hian Teck, Published The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

FOR a clue as to where Singaporean wage earnings are heading, it would be useful to identify some of the major trends affecting Singapore's labour market over the past decade.

Analysing both the consequences of, and the factors affecting these trends can help us discern how Singaporean workers are likely to fare in the next decade.

The past decade

USING the Yearbook of Statistics Singapore 2012, we can identify five facts about Singapore's labour market that appear to be pertinent.

- First, the size of the total labour force increased from 2.3 million in 2001 to 3.2 million in 2011, an increase of nearly 40 per cent over the decade. About half of the increase came from the expansion of the resident labour force, which is made up of Singapore citizens and permanent residents.

- Second, the educational attainment, or what economists call human capital, of the typical member of the resident labour force increased. This is reflected both in an increase in the resident worker's mean years of schooling from 8.5 years in 2001 to 10.2 years in 2011, as well as an increase in the percentage of the resident labour force having secondary or higher educational qualifications, from 53 per cent in 2001 to about 67 per cent in 2011.

While a hefty expansion of the labour force size is not likely to be repeated over the next decade, a further increase in the level of human capital of the typical resident worker seems very likely.

- Third, the relative share of total employment in the manufacturing sector has declined over the past decade with employment gains going predominantly to the service sector. This shift in employment out of manufacturing into services is even more pronounced if we look only at the resident labour force.

Interestingly, while the manufacturing sector's employment share has declined, the sector's share of total real GDP, that is, GDP after adjusting for inflation, shows an increase from 24 per cent in 2001 to 27 per cent in 2011.

Thus, manufacturing output per worker has increased over the past decade. Where have the sector's productivity gains gone?

A closer look at the Yearbook of Statistics shows that the manufacturing sector's share of total wage compensation of employees actually declined from 20 per cent in 2001 to about 16 per cent in 2011. This suggests that most of the productivity gains in manufacturing in the past decade went to profits.

- Fourth, the share of the employed resident labour force made up of the occupation group commonly called professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET) increased from 44 per cent in 2001 to 52 per cent in 2011.

Correspondingly, the share of production craftsmen and machine operators declined from 18 per cent to a little above 12 per cent over the past decade. The share of clerical workers also saw a decline.

- Fifth, the share of total wage compensation of employees going to the industries classified as Finance & Insurance and Business Services increased from about 22 per cent in 2001 to about 29 per cent in 2011.

This share declined in 2008 and 2009 in the face of the global financial crisis but recovered in 2010 and 2011.

The future

IN THE light of the five facts about Singapore's labour market highlighted above, what implications are there for Singaporean wage earnings?

While the number of residents working in the manufacturing sector actually declined over the past decade, manufacturing firms overall still created more job vacancies that were filled by foreign workers.

The ready access to the supply of foreign workers kept labour costs low while the increase in value-add per worker boosted the profitability of manufacturing firms. This boost to profits very likely benefited both multinational corporations (MNC) as well as small and medium-sized enterprises (SME).

The Government released its White Paper on Population last week. It forecast a slower workforce growth of about 1 per cent to 2 per cent, down from the average of 3.3 per cent a year, from 1980 to 2010.

With an expected tightening of the supply of foreign workers, there would now appear to be pressure on wages to rise in the manufacturing sector. This prospect is not an unmitigated good for Singaporean workers, however. SMEs that are unable to raise workers' productivity to match the higher labour costs will exit the industry, thus leading to job destruction.

MNCs will also likely look at alternative locations outside Singapore to place some of their production activities, thus moving jobs overseas. For there to be a steady supply of jobs with good pay for Singaporeans, the country would need to continue to attract MNCs by harnessing its relative strength in institutional quality and the availability of a highly skilled workforce.

Success in helping SMEs to raise their productivity levels and sell into overseas markets would also be vital.

Innovative SMEs that succeed in crossing the productivity threshold to pay the fixed cost of exporting will be able to invest resources in job screening to find employees with high ability to justify their high pay.

More goes to PMETs

WE SAW that most of the employment gains in the past decade occurred for PMETs at the expense of production and clerical workers. On the whole, PMETs are in a higher wage income bracket than production and clerical workers so the distributional shift has produced an upward mobility for many in the Singapore workforce.

This occupational shift in favour of PMETs has also been observed in the United States and euro zone countries in the past two decades. As the White Paper noted, by 2030, two-thirds of Singaporeans will be in PMET jobs, up from half today.

An explanation offered by economists is that computerisation has reduced the demand for workers to perform routine tasks while placing a premium on workers who are able to perform non-routine tasks requiring abstract reasoning and human interactions. Routine tasks are also more easily offshored to workers overseas.

Policy aimed at retraining Singaporean workers who are displaced by the Internet revolution will have to take on increased urgency and our education system will need to prepare graduates who are versatile and able to cope with changes.

We observed that the share of total wage compensation going to employees in the industries classified as Finance & Insurance and Business Services enjoyed a secular increase over the past decade although it suffered a decline in 2008 and 2009.

Most likely, the wage gains enjoyed by workers in these industries are partly explained by the vast expansion in gross global financial flows.

With the proliferation of gross international asset and liability positions, especially in the advanced economies, Singapore's financial sector enjoyed a boom.

The pick-up of the wage share in 2010 and 2011 probably resulted from the heightened boom in Singapore's property market, raising the amount of local financial activity.

With reform of the global financial market in the works to stem the adverse effects of interconnectedness among counterparties trading in complex financial products, it seems likely that this will have a dampening effect on wage earnings in Singapore's financial sector.

It would appear that the rise of the wage share of the financial sector will be somewhat moderated.

A boost to the wage earnings of Singapore's financial and business services sector could, however, come from a different source.

As noted earlier, the upward trend in human capital investment is likely to continue. As more Singaporeans possess the higher skills able to take advantage of new technologies to launch new business ideas, more of them may be prepared to take the plunge to become entrepreneurs.

This would lead to an increased demand for financial expertise to assess the prospects of business projects put forward by a bigger supply of entrepreneurs that require funding. The increased demand for financial intermediation could then boost the wage earnings of the financial sector as Singapore turns to SMEs to provide a new source of growth.

The writer is professor of economics at the Singapore Management University.

---

9 foreign chambers oppose labour curbs

February 5, 2013, 11:03 pm

≫ Next: Parliament Highlights - 5 Feb 2013

≪ Previous: The future of wages in S'pore

$

0

0

They say Singapore's reputation as an open economy could be hurt

By Melissa Tan, The Straits Times, 5 Feb 2013

NINE foreign chambers of commerce, representing companies with many billions of dollars of investments here, have added their voices to a chorus of protests against tighter government curbs on foreign labour.

They were responding to the Population White Paper released last week.

Restricting foreign labour further could damage Singapore's reputation as an open economy, wrote Australian Chamber of Commerce president Graham Lee, in an open letter to Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin last week.

"Our concerns relate to certainty in the ability to employ candidates with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience required and also to be able to tap into a larger labour workforce than is available in Singapore," he said.

Mr Tan's office has not made any statement on the letter.

Mr Lee also said that after changes were made to the criteria for S-Passes - for lower-skilled workers - and criteria for some other related issues, "anecdotal evidence from constituents has indicated inconsistency in the granting of passes against published criteria".

He told The Straits Times that one of the chambers said some of its member firms' employment pass applicants met the criteria but did not get the passes. He did not give further details.

Mr Lee was writing on behalf of chambers here, including the American Chamber of Commerce, the British Chamber of Commerce and the European Chamber of Commerce, in response to the Government's Population White Paper unveiled last Tuesday.

It projects that the labour force will expand at 1 per cent to 2 per cent a year from now until 2020. From 2020 to 2030, this will drop to 1 per cent a year, much lower than the 3.3 per cent growth seen between 1980 and 2010.

The chambers said that while they supported the idea of productivity-driven growth, it would be "more difficult in some industries than others".

The Singapore Retailers Association (SRA) yesterday said the retail sector was finding it "extremely difficult" to hire Singaporeans and urged the Government to rethink its labour policy.

SRA president Jannie Chan said an estimated 12,500 new workers in food and retail would be needed by 2015, and asked for a breakdown of how many foreign workers each sector would be allocated in future so that businesses could plan ahead.

The chambers added they endorsed the views that the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) had laid out in a position paper in December.

The SBF said last week that any further foreign labour curbs would be "devastating" for businesses here.

In December, it said that restrictive labour policies could lead to higher business costs that would be passed on to consumers and other businesses.

The other chambers represented were the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the French Chamber of Commerce, the Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the New Zealand Chamber of Commerce and the Singapore-German Chamber of Industry and Commerce.

Several foreign firms prepare to leave S'pore

Labour tightening measures have hit them hard; letter conveys concerns to minister

By Malminderjit Singh, The Business Times, 5 Feb 2013

Labour tightening measures have hit them hard; letter conveys concerns to minister.

Some foreign companies in Singapore have started to pull out of the country as the government tightens the inflow of foreign workers here. More could follow suit.

According to the latest manpower survey by the American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham) in Singapore, 5 per cent of respondent companies, made up of AmCham members, have already moved operations out of Singapore as a result of the labour tightening measures introduced last year. The survey, conducted in the third quarter of last year, showed that a further 15 per cent of respondents are looking at relocating their operations overseas.

"While we understand the pressures that Singapore's limited area and resources place on crafting long-term policy, we worry that the trajectory announced could significantly cut workforce growth and have drastic consequences for businesses and the economy of Singapore," said AmCham chairman Simon Kahn.

"As the percentage of Singaporeans qualifying for PMET (professional, manager, executive and technician) jobs continues to increase, the supply of workers to fill these non-PMET roles will continue to shrink. Without access to foreign workers here in Singapore, companies that cannot adapt will be forced to leave the country."

The Australian Chamber of Commerce (AustCham) Singapore as well as the British Chamber of Commerce said that some of their member companies have also been hit by the manpower crunch and are looking at moving out. AustCham Singapore president Graham Lee said that one of his chamber's members, involved in the food distribution business, was considering relocating to Iskandar Malaysia and others could follow suit.

"A lot of our members find it (labour tightening) critical and the issue then is if this (Singapore) is the right place to be and also consequently if high costs or declining service standards become issues," Mr Lee explained.

Yesterday, nine national chambers of commerce here wrote to Singapore's Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin to voice their concerns about the new plans to calibrate the entry of foreign employees into Singapore as detailed in the White Paper released last week. The letter was issued by the AustCham on behalf of the rest.

"Our members are concerned with the revision of government policies pertaining to the employment of foreign workers in Singapore and the resultant impact on the operations of foreign and local companies and the overall economy," the letter, signed-off by AustCham president Mr Lee, stated.

It added that the change in the labour policy here could adversely impact Singapore's fortunes.

"Singapore's openness to foreign labour has enabled it to attract, retain and absorb the best of foreign talent, providing it with a clear competitive advantage over its neighbours," said the letter, which also spoke on behalf of the British Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, EuroCham, French Chamber of Commerce, Japanese Chamber of Commerce & Industry, New Zealand Chamber of Commerce and the Singapore-German Chamber of Industry & Commerce, in addition to AmCham.

The nine chambers and their members wanted some certainty about being able to hire candidates with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience and to be able to tap into a larger labour workforce than is available in Singapore.

The document also makes two other broad points. Firstly, younger foreign workers need to be brought in to drive productivity and innovation here so that restrictive labour policies don't lead to inflationary wages and raise business costs.

Also, with fewer Singaporeans looking for non-PMET positions, there was a need to have more foreign workers in sectors such as service, construction and manufacturing - otherwise standards could slip.

German multinational firm Bosch Group said it had become hard to find talent. "Competition for talent is stiff and as a high-technology company, we have a requirement for many niche and highly skilled roles. For these specific roles, we endeavour to examine Singapore's talent pool before looking outward," said Martin Hayes, president of Bosch Southeast Asia.

Belinda Braggs, managing director of pharma consulting firm SeerPharma here in Singapore, said that she had not been able to renew the employment pass of a staffer who was managing a project. Local talent was hard to come by and now it was becoming difficult to bring in foreign talent. Nine years after setting up office here, she said that the situation could force her to leave.

Parliament Highlights - 5 Feb 2013

February 5, 2013, 11:09 pm

≫ Next: WP proposals on foreign labour 'disastrous' for economy: SBF

≪ Previous: 9 foreign chambers oppose labour curbs

$

0

0

WP proposals on foreign labour 'disastrous' for economy: SBF

February 6, 2013, 8:00 am

≫ Next: Yew Tee residents raise concerns over new nursing home

≪ Previous: Parliament Highlights - 5 Feb 2013

$

0

0

By Robin Chan, The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

SINGAPORE'S largest business chamber yesterday hit out at the Workers' Party's proposals to have no additional foreign workers till 2020, saying that it would be "disastrous" for the Singapore economy and its competitiveness and "does no one any good".

It would also delay the completion of much needed capacity in the housing, transport and health-care sectors, and hurt local firms most severely, the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) said in a statement issued just hours after the WP put forward its plan to Parliament.

"With no growth in foreign workers, the impact on the economy and Singapore's competitiveness would be disastrous. The livelihood and well-being of Singaporeans will be compromised," said the federation, which represents more than 18,000 local and foreign firms in Singapore.

Sectors which have jobs that are unattractive to locals will be severely affected, such as construction firms which need more foreign workers to build new homes and MRT lines, and the health-care sector which needs more foreign workers to help reduce the strains in the polyclinics and hospitals.

It reiterated its stance that both local and foreign workers are needed to keep Singapore competitive and called for a consensus.

Chief operating officer Victor Tay also said firms are already facing difficulties drawing more locals into the workforce. "Companies are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, changing shift hours to suit the 'economically inactive' group comprising of homemakers and grandparents."

The WP proposed yesterday to keep the number of foreign workers constant till 2020, and to grow the resident labour force by 1 per cent a year, by increasing the labour force participation rate and complementing that with productivity gains.

This would result in a smaller population size and lower economic growth rate than that projected in the White Paper on Population.

It is the second time the SBF has raised alarm over the prospects of a slower growing workforce, since the White Paper was released last week.

Meanwhile, president of the 6,500-strong Association of Small and Medium Enterprises Chan Chong Beng called the WP's idea "ridiculous". "The WP should talk to business people, a lot of them already want to close shop because of the shortage of foreign workers," he said.

Related

Singapore Business Federation highlights harsh realities for businesses as a consequence of drastic cut in workforce growth

Call to relook curbs on foreign labour inflow

9 foreign chambers oppose labour curbs

Several foreign firms prepare to leave S'pore

Yew Tee residents raise concerns over new nursing home

February 6, 2013, 9:24 pm

≫ Next: New Code of Conduct Places Responsibility on Teachers

≪ Previous: WP proposals on foreign labour 'disastrous' for economy: SBF

$

0

0

By Charissa Yong, The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

YET another group of residents is unhappy that a nursing home will be built in their neighbourhood.

In the latest case of the Nimby (not in my backyard) syndrome, residents of a Yew Tee condominium have met their MP to express their concerns.

About 100 Yew Mei Green residents attended the dialogue with Chua Chu Kang GRC MP Gan Kim Yong last Friday, during which staff from the Ministry of Health (MOH) and Land Transport Authority (LTA) also outlined what would be done to tackle concerns.

The Yew Tee nursing home is one of 10 to be built islandwide by 2016 to meet the needs of an ageing population. The 0.22ha open space - the size of about half a football field - will tentatively be up for tender later this year.

Last Friday, at least 10 residents stepped up to the microphones to give feedback, from noise pollution during construction to the lack of public transport options in the area.

A resident, who declined to be named, told The Straits Times yesterday that she is worried property prices may also be affected. The 45-year-old woman said: "The nursing home will also worsen traffic and block our view."

Last October, Mr Gan had informed the residents in the condo's 712 units about the nursing home. In the first feedback session on Oct 16, they had proposed other sites for the facility, said an MOH spokesman.

They were mainly concerned about the project's impact on traffic in the area which is served by bus service number 307 that plies Choa Chu Kang North 6, a single-lane road in each direction.

Several responses were presented by MOH and LTA at last Friday's dialogue. The nursing home will now be seven storeys, instead of eight, while the single lane in Choa Chu Kang North 6, towards Choa Chu Kang North 5, will be expanded into a dual lane.

Mr Gan, who is also Health Minister, said yesterday in reply to queries from The Straits Times that the consultation process had helped both government agencies and the residents to better understand each other's positions.

"Several residents understandably remain concerned about the impact of the development. We will continue to engage the residents and address their concerns. We also hope to involve the residents in the design and construction phases of this project," he added.

A similar row cropped up last February when Woodlands residents petitioned against the setting up of an eldercare centre in a void deck, concerned that they would lose their communal space. Last May, a group of Bishan East residents petitioned against the building of a nursing home there.

But some Yew Mei Green residents welcome the nursing home. Said Ms Pauline Lee, a freelance trainer in her mid-40s: "We're all going to grow old one day so we need nursing homes." Her neighbour Christopher Chong, 18, agreed. "If you need to take care of your parents, you should have a place to do that," said the Nanyang Polytechnic student.

New Code of Conduct Places Responsibility on Teachers

February 6, 2013, 9:36 pm

≫ Next: PAP won't push for facilities in Punggol East

≪ Previous: Yew Tee residents raise concerns over new nursing home

$

0

0

Up to teachers to avoid 'inappropriate situations', says code of conduct

By Kezia Toh, The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

TEACHERS have a responsibility to fend off romantic advances from infatuated students, a new code of conduct spells out for the first time.

The newly released rules place the onus for avoiding inappropriate situations firmly on the adult.

They come in the wake of calls for stricter guidelines following a string of scandals last year, including that of a female teacher who had sex with a teenage boy from her school.

The Code of Professional Conduct for Educators aims to uphold boundaries by clearly defining which relationships are "inappropriate".

For example, staff cannot have any kind of romantic entanglement with students - even if they are not teaching them directly or the young person goes to a different school.

And the standards apply regardless of whether the relationship is consensual, the parents approve or the youngster is over 16.

For the first time, teachers are explicitly told they should take steps to discourage "infatuations that can sometimes develop".

However, the code says that they should handle the situation sensitively "while minimising hurt and distress to the student concerned".

Yesterday, parents and educators welcomed the new guidelines.

Housewife Saliza Ramilan, who has a son at Greendale Secondary, said it was a good way to remind staff that they are role models.

"Our children are young and easily influenced," added the 46-year-old.

"This is especially important because teachers are the ones they really look up to."

The principal of a primary school in the west, who asked not to be named, told The Straits Times that the guidelines were much better than the previous versions, which were like "trying to navigate a grey area".

A teacher from a secondary school in the north, who has been teaching for the past two years, added that placing the onus on staff is a good move because they are older and are expected to be more responsible.

The Education Ministry first announced the code in November last year.

It said at the time that the aim was to help staff uphold high standards amid an environment that is becoming "increasingly complex" due to factors such as the rise of social media.

Teachers were given briefings, during which they discussed possible scenarios that could arise in the classroom.

Last week, they were told that the rules were available on the ministry's Intranet.

The new code incorporates two documents currently used by teachers - the civil service instruction manuals and the Ministry of Education internal conduct guidelines.

It has two parts: mandatory rules such as not drinking or gambling in school and advice including how to keep work and personal life separate by creating two social media accounts.

The document, which is more than 30 pages long, goes into far greater detail about teacher-student boundaries than previous versions. For example, it covers issues such as personal appearance and communication with parents.

Several definitions of an "inappropriate" relationship are listed. These include teachers dating students and displaying "flirtatious behaviour" or romantic feelings towards them.

And the code explicitly outlaws "grooming" a young person for a sexual relationship or abuse. Students are defined as children in mainstream primary and secondary schools, junior colleges and centralised institutes.

However, the guidelines are not "designed to cover every situation". They say that staff should ask their vice-principals, principals or branch heads if they need clarification.

Dos and don'ts

Teacher-student relationships

The onus is on the teachers - not the students - to distance themselves from inappropriate situations.

These include teachers dating students and displaying "flirtatious behaviour" or romantic feelings towards them.

Out-of-school and after-school activities

Teachers should not attend a one-on-one social event with a student unless there is a "professional need" to do so and the principal or parents have consented to it.

Social media

Teachers are personally responsible for what they post online, and should protect their privacy to avoid their professionalism being questioned.

They are advised to manage their social media presence by creating a separate account for educational matters or use professional language when communicating online with students.

Drinking, gambling, smoking

Teachers cannot drink alcohol, gamble or smoke in school or while on duty.

PAP won't push for facilities in Punggol East

February 6, 2013, 9:52 pm

≫ Next: The artist, the state and the market

≪ Previous: New Code of Conduct Places Responsibility on Teachers

$

0

0

Limit to what it can do for residents as its candidate was not elected: Teo Ser Luck

By Toh Yong Chuan, The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

THE People's Action Party (PAP) will stop pushing for new infrastructure projects in Punggol East, and end its weekly Meet-the-People sessions there.

Announcing the moves at a Punggol East community event last night after its by-election loss barely two weeks ago, Northeast Community Development Council (CDC) mayor Teo Ser Luck said there is a limit to what the PAP can do for residents of the single-seat ward given that its candidate was not elected to represent them.

Mr Teo was made caretaker MP after former Speaker Michael Palmer resigned last December over an extramarital affair, triggering the by-election which saw the Workers' Party's (WP) Lee Li Lian elected MP.

Last night, PAP candidate Koh Poh Koon said: "If you are not the MP, you do not necessarily have the resources and the full support of the people to carry out some of the things." 

He also said that to be fair to the incumbent MP, "we need to give her the space to do what she can for the residents, because that is the voters' decision".

The new facilities and improvements that the PAP will not be pushing for include childcare centres, integrated elder-care facilities, feeder bus services, wet markets and a community club. These were projects that Dr Koh campaigned on.

Its weekly MPS will cease immediately. Mr Teo said residents can approach Ms Lee if they need help to follow-up on cases the PAP handled. He expects the transition to be smooth, as the town council handover has been.

Mr Teo insists the PAP is not bailing out on Punggol East voters. The grassroots bodies will continue to run help schemes for needy residents, including monthly distribution of grocery packs and a new job placement centre under the CDC. He said he will remain the People's Association grassroots adviser in Punggol East, while Dr Koh heads the PAP branch there.

"I will still do what I can as branch chair, to help out in activities that would benefit residents," said Dr Koh.

Residents' activities including festive celebrations will continue, although on a smaller scale.

Mr Teo would not be drawn into comparing Punggol East with Hougang, where the PAP's Mr Desmond Choo, who lost in a by-election last May, still meets residents weekly.

Former nominated MP Siew Kum Hong was not surprised by the move: "This was going to come eventually. As Workers' Party becomes stronger, the PAP will want voters to understand that their votes have consequences." But he says the move may not help the PAP win back Punggol East as "there is a general desire for more opposition in Parliament, no matter how good the PAP is".

Security officer Abdul Malek, 45, was surprised when told of the move. He is glad the help schemes will continue. The father of four school-going children earns $1,850 each month and receives monthly grocery packs from the Citizens' Consultative Committee.

"Some residents will continue to need help, regardless of the election outcome," he said.

The artist, the state and the market

February 6, 2013, 9:57 pm

≫ Next: How far to go over the right to know?

≪ Previous: PAP won't push for facilities in Punggol East

$

0

0

Singapore's arts scene is at a tipping point, with a vibrant community of artists and sophisticated audience. But three challenges remain: the deficit of trust between state and artist; moderating the influence of the market on the artists; and the penchant for experimental, inaccessible art

By Tommy Koh, Published The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

AS THE son of a book- loving father and an art-loving mother, I sometimes think that I was fated to play a role in our country's cultural development in the past two decades.

From 1991 to 1996, I served as the founding chairman of the National Arts Council (NAC). In 1992, I was appointed to chair the Censorship Review Committee.

I was a member of the steering committee which conceptualised and oversaw the building of the Esplanade theatres and served, subsequently, on its board from 2000 to 2007. I was the chairman of the National Heritage Board (NHB) from 2002 to 2011.

Culturally, Singapore has gone through a paradigm change since 1990. The change is both quantitative and qualitative. Today, Singapore has a rich, year-round, calendar of cultural activities. They span the whole spectrum - exhibitions, art fairs, auctions, recitals, concerts, plays, musicals, dance, theatre, film and writers festivals, book launches, lectures, workshops, conferences, etc. The quality has also risen and, in many cases, met international standards.

World class

WE HAVE some world class arts infrastructure such as the Esplanade theatres and the soon to be completed National Art Gallery. We have museums such as the Asian Civilisations Museum and the Peranakan Museum. Our two arts colleges, Nafa and Lasalle, and the Yong Siew Toh Conservatory of Music, have become internationally respected. We have the world's best collection of South- east Asian art.

We have a vibrant and growing community of writers, composers, choreographers, actors, dancers, singers, musicians, artists, curators, conservators, designers, arts administrators and gallery owners. Artistic freedom, a culture of tolerance and the acceptance of diversity, have grown stronger although they are still not optimal. The social status and incomes of our cultural workers have risen, but could go higher.

Most important of all, we have nurtured a new generation of culture-loving and heritage-loving Singaporeans. Our investments in arts education and in the brilliantly successful School of the Arts have yielded rich dividends.

Although we have made tremendous progress in the past two decades, many challenges remain. Let me briefly discuss three of these challenges.

The artist and the state

FIRST, we should try to reduce the deficit of trust between the artistic community and the Government. The problem is partly a legacy of the past, when the Government practised heavy censorship. Some artists, such as the late theatre pioneer Kuo Pao Kun, were detained. It is also partly the result of more recent actions, such as reducing the funding of an arts group or a festival, because the Government did not like a certain play or plays.

We need better communication between the artistic community and the Government. The communication should be two- way and based on mutual respect. We also need policymakers and administrators who have domain knowledge and have an affection for culture and the arts.

When I was the chairman of NAC, I hosted a different group of artists to tea each month. My purpose was to befriend them, to earn their trust and to convince them that my agenda was to help them to succeed. Problems were often sorted out over a cup of tea.

When an attempt was made to stigmatise forum theatre and The Necessary Stage, I wrote to this newspaper to defend them. If I had not done so, my narrative that the chairman of NAC is a patron and champion of our artists would have been shown to be just empty talk. I failed, however, to protect performance artist Josef Ng from the wrath of law enforcement agencies.

The artist and the market

SECOND, many of our artists find themselves caught in a moral dilemma. They need money to survive. They need to sell their works to collectors and the art market. At the same time, they fear that by seeking to cater to the needs and preferences of the collectors and the market, they will be seduced by money and lose their integrity.

On balance, however, the market serves the interest of the artist and should not be demonised. The public sector plays a balancing role. When we acquire the works of artists for our museums, we do so based on artistic merit and not market value. We confer awards on our artists based solely on their artistic achievements and not their commercial success.

The state has an important role to play as a patron of the arts and as a balance to the power of the market. For example, theatre and dance companies are finding it increasingly hard to stage performances because of rising rentals. The state should step in to help and do so more generously. Ideally, we should try to create a virtuous triangle, consisting of the artist, the state and the market.

High art or popular art

THIRD, one of the ongoing debates in Singapore is over whether our cultural policy should be populist or elitist. I think this is a false choice. I believe that there is no contradiction between supporting high art and popular art. Indeed, we should do both. In music, for example, we should support classical music as well as other genres such as popular (pop) and jazz. I was, therefore, very pleased when the NAC conferred the Cultural Medallion on popular performer Dick Lee and jazz pianist Jeremy Monteiro.

What we need is balance. In recent years, we may have lost that balance and veered too much towards what I would not call elitist, but the cutting edge or experimental. For example, in recent editions of the Festival of the Arts, there were too few mainstream items and too many from the sidestream.

I also think that the Singapore Biennale should refocus on South-east Asia because we cannot possibly compete with the older and well-established biennales of Venice, Sao Paolo, etc, which have a global focus.

Our comparative advantage is in presenting South-east Asian art to the world. I also think that the curators should include more works which are accessible and fewer works which are comprehensible only to experts in contemporary art.

The pendulum should come back to the centre and not swing to the other extreme. We should not dumb down the activities of NAC and NHB. We should not underestimate our citizens. We should continue to push forward and build up our intellectual and cultural capital. We should commission new works and support our talented young artists even when we find their works to be unfamiliar or uncomfortable.

When confronted by a work which provokes puzzlement or negative reactions, I always remind myself that when the Impressionist painters made their debut, they were denounced by the French artistic establishment. The lesson learnt is that we should always have an open mind.

Culturally, Singapore has passed the tipping point. The cultural renaissance of Singapore has taken off. Going forward, the Government should concentrate less on building hardware and more on building software.

This means investing more money in acquisitions, in training and human capital and in the development of our intellectual and cultural capital. The vision of remaking Singapore into the cultural capital of South-east Asia is within reach.

To reach this goal, the artist, the Government and the community will have to work even more closely and harmoniously.

The writer is a special adviser at the Institute of Policy Studies.

---

How far to go over the right to know?

February 6, 2013, 10:05 pm

≫ Next: Parliament Highlights - 6 Feb 2013

≪ Previous: The artist, the state and the market

$

0

0

By Choo Zheng Xi, Published The Straits Times, 6 Feb 2013

PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong was less than enthusiastic when responding to an audience member's question about whether the Government was considering a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at this year's Institute of Policy Studies Perspectives Seminar last week.

The exchange was the latest instalment of a perennial but peripheral discussion about an FOIA. In fact, there is much misunderstanding and inflated expectations about such an Act and what it might achieve.

As a result, the respective positions for and against such legislation have been reduced to the following: proponents argue that the Act will make the Government more accountable and transparent, while opponents argue that it will sap government resources, lead to leaks in sensitive information and conversely encourage opaqueness.

Both positions are reasonable hypotheses of possible outcomes. But it might be more productive to look at the experience of countries with FOIA legislation to get a better sense of the actual challenges and promises of such an Act.

First, what is an FOIA and how does such legislation generally look?

FOIA legislation is best understood as "right-to-know" legislation that guarantees any member of the public's right to access data held by government bodies. As of the last quarter of 2012, at least 93 countries have some form of FOIA legislation.

Such legislation is generally coupled with legal obligations for government bodies to archive information.

FOIA requests can be made by members of the public, civil society groups or news organisations. Decisions by public bodies not to disclose information are usually reviewable by the courts.

Three misconceptions about FOIA legislation have caused much disappointment to information activists in countries that have adopted it. Such misconceptions have also held back governments' adoption of it in countries that have yet to do so.

The first relates to scope. Campaigners hope, and governments fear, that the all-encompassing breadth of an FOIA will shine a strobe light of openness on every nook and cranny of government.

In reality, FOIA legislation even in Western democracies with more liberal attitudes to public access to information has exemptions that entitle governments to withhold or redact information about sensitive national security and defence documents, Cabinet deliberations or government documents containing personal data of third parties.

For example, US law recognises the right of the federal government to withhold information on national security grounds in cases where the information is so sensitive that the agency is entitled to respond that it can "neither confirm or deny" it actually exists.

Such a response is known as a "Glomar response" after the name of a top secret CIA programme used to salvage a Soviet submarine at the height of the Cold War.

More recently, the response was used by a US federal circuit court to prevent the release of documents relating to the use of torture in the US "war on terror".

So, those hoping to see the introduction of an FOIA need to keep in mind the reality that the Government will still, at the end of the day, be entitled to withhold certain classes of sensitive information.

As for the Government, the concern that it will completely lose its ability to protect sensitive information should not be overstated.

The second misconception about the FOIA from those who favour it is that it will painlessly usher in a new era of enlightened public discourse.

The experience of countries that have adopted it suggests a more prosaic reality: requests for information will include the mad and the bad, thrown in with questions that are the paragons of investigative journalism and public spiritedness.

It is entirely possible the former will outnumber the latter.

In the early years of the FOIA in Britain (which adopted it in 2000), requests were made seeking the e-mail addresses of unmarried policemen in Hampshire and the number of sex acts perpetrated on Welsh sheep.

Public education about the benefits and mechanics of an FOIA can take much more time than the conceptualisation and implementation of actual legislation.

Even with the Act, it will take time to entrench a culture of access to information as of right, and build an engaged civil society that is able to meaningfully analyse the data obtained and formulate questions for further public debate.

It will also take time to convince all levels of government bureaucracy that a culture of archiving and releasing information to the public as a matter of course is beneficial to public policy formulation.

The third misconception about the FOIA is that it discourages candour in decision-making.

The argument goes that it will have a "chilling effect" on policymakers fearful of having potentially to reveal the minutes of internal meetings to public scrutiny, leading to a sanitisation of meeting minutes.

Thankfully, this does not appear to be Britain's experience.

A House of Lords Justice Committee report set up to review the FOIA, published in July last year, "was not able to conclude, with any certainty, that a chilling effect has resulted from the FOI Act". It added that the value of openness introduced by the Act balanced out any marginal chilling effect.

In any case, it is questionable if the Singapore civil service with its high standards of integrity will succumb to the perverse incentive to conceal information to prevent it surfacing.

The pros and cons of an FOIA deserve serious, informed debate that comes from a clear-eyed understanding of its potential limitations and a realistic view of what it can achieve.

A proper understanding of its potential, together with sustained public education, can go some way to enhancing the culture of transparency and good decision making that the Singapore Government is known for.

The writer is a lawyer at Peter Low LLC and has worked on FOIA litigation in the United States.

Parliament Highlights - 6 Feb 2013

February 6, 2013, 10:32 pm

≫ Next: SICC against curbing flow of workers

≪ Previous: How far to go over the right to know?

$

0

0

Minister for Khaw Boon Wan's Speech at the Parliamentary Debate on the Population White Paper from NPTD PMO on Vimeo.

SICC against curbing flow of workers

February 7, 2013, 7:26 pm

≫ Next: The future of the Singapore Story

≪ Previous: Parliament Highlights - 6 Feb 2013

$

0

0

Business body says S’poreans stand to benefit from letting in more foreigners

By Fiona Chan & Robin Chan, The Straits Times, 7 Feb 2013

ANOTHER business association in Singapore has joined the chorus of complaints about proposals to further restrict the inflow of foreign workers.

The Singapore International Chamber of Commerce (SICC) said yesterday that economic growth is not a 'zero sum game' and that with the imminent shortage of manpower, Singaporeans will actually benefit from letting in more foreigners.

'While we understand the 'foreign talent' sensitivities among Singaporeans, the economy needs to be viewed as an ecosystem', the chamber said in a statement.

'It is not a zero-sum game that pits MNCs against SMEs, or locals against foreigners,' it added, referring to multinational companies and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Rather than taking jobs away from locals, multinationals and SMEs can work together 'to create a multiplier effect in the local economy through job creation', said the chamber, whose members include a significant number of large multinationals.

SMEs hire the bulk of Singapore's workforce- about two-thirds- but many depend on MNCs as their major clients.

The SICC's statement is the latest protest from Singapore's business community, not just against the plans in the White Paper on Population to slash workforce growth by half, but also against the proposals by the Workers' Party (WP) to completely freeze foreign workforce growth till 2020 while expanding the resident workforce. The Singapore Business Federation had, on Tuesday, called the WP's plans 'disastrous' for Singapore's economy and competitiveness.

In adding its voice to those of other business groups, the SICC warned that the tight labour market is already causing wages and, in turn, business costs to rise.

This could jeopardise Singapore's position as a regional business hub, it said.

With local workers in short supply and the economy near full employment, hiring remains a challenge across both traditional sectors such as hospitality and retail, as well as new ones including biotechnology and energy, it added.

Earlier this week, nine national chambers of commerce in Singapore wrote a letter to Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin protesting against the tighter curbs on foreign labour proposed in the White Paper.

The letter was made public by the Australian chamber on behalf of the others, which included the American and British chambers.

These three national chambers also reported this week that some of their member companies had either moved out of Singapore as a result of the labour restrictions, or were planning to do so.

Related

Singapore Business Federation highlights harsh realities for businesses as a consequence of drastic cut in workforce growth

Call to relook curbs on foreign labour inflow

9 foreign chambers oppose labour curbs

Several foreign firms prepare to leave S'pore

WP proposals on foreign labour 'disastrous' for economy: SBF

The future of the Singapore Story

February 7, 2013, 7:46 pm

≫ Next: S'pore sees lowest crime rate in 29 years

≪ Previous: SICC against curbing flow of workers

$

0

0

Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong spoke during the debate on the Population White Paper in Parliament yesterday. These are extracts from his speech.

The Straits Times, 7 Feb 2013

IS THE Singapore Story over? All nations face their own unique set of complex and intractable challenges. We, too, are at a crossroads where we as a people have to make some tough decisions.

How we respond to these challenges, and how our leaders and people rally together, will determine the future of the Singapore Story. This is what the White Paper is about - a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore.

As Singapore's second Prime Minister, my key mission was to Keep Singapore Going. Keeping Singapore going includes growing the economy to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

Why is the economy important? Because it means jobs, food, homes, clothes, schools, medical services, roads, trains and all the necessities and niceties of life.

We pay attention to economic growth in order to create good jobs for fresh graduates and school-leavers, provide security for workers, accumulate resources to subsidise housing, health care and education, help the lower-income Singaporeans through schemes like Workfare, and save for the future.

Gross domestic product (GDP) is an economic indicator to sum up the economic activities within a country. Pursuing GDP growth is a means to get a good harvest for Singaporeans. It is not an end in itself. The bigger the GDP, the bigger the harvest.

To Keep Singapore Going is like perpetually rolling a huge boulder up a mountain side. We have no natural resources and it is our fate that we have to keep rolling it to survive. But as we near the proverbial summit, the slope gets steeper, the air thinner and the boulder heavier.

Singapore faces some very serious challenges, which PM and his team must tackle. They include:

- Meeting the higher expectations of a well-educated young generation for better jobs, promising careers, affordable housing and comfortable lifestyles.

- Meeting the needs of the burgeoning older generation, in particular, their medical, social and financial needs.

- Preventing the citizen population and workforce from shrinking in the next decade and raising the total fertility rate.

- Overcoming our physical space constraints.

- Coping with slower growth as the economy matures, even as the demands to increase social spending grow.

- Reducing our reliance on non-resident workers.

- Keeping the Singaporean identity alive and not becoming a minority in our own country.

- Defending ourselves as future cohorts of combat-fit NSmen would be much smaller than today's.

The White Paper, a road map

I READ the White Paper as the Government's attempt and strategic plan to find solutions to surmount our constraints of space and the limits of an ageing and shrinking citizen population.

In short, it is about sustaining our growth and prosperity, so that the young can pursue their dreams, the seniors can grow old with dignity, parents can raise families, and everyone can enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.

I, too, am not sure about the idea of having 6.9 million people. Many Singaporeans cannot imagine how that can work, when their daily experience with 5.3 million people is of crowded trains and buses. It is good that DPM Teo (Chee Hean) has reiterated and reassured all of us that 6.9 million is only a planning parameter and not a policy target.

What the optimal, stable and long-term population for Singapore should be is a legitimate question, a very important one. What proportion of citizens and foreigners should be in the population is also another important question to resolve. But this is not the time for us to resolve this. We should debate this in the future.

But for now, we should not be fixated on the population figure in the White Paper. Instead, we should decide if we agree with the broad approaches laid out in the White Paper.

These are: (a) changing to a lower gear in our economic growth, (b) a calibrated slow-down in expansion of the non-resident workforce, and (c) extensive construction of infrastructure and affordable housing to meet the needs of the still-growing population.

Restructuring the economy, calibrating immigration

CONTINUAL economic restructuring is one of the enduring features of the Singapore Story.

Since the Economic Strategies Committee released its recommendations in 2009, the Government has moved to enhance productivity and to wean businesses off cheap and easily available foreign labour, and with increasing urgency in the last two years.

It is clear that we have brought in too many immigrants for our infrastructure to cope and for Singaporean society to integrate. The Government has recognised this and has taken steps to put things right.

The Government's calibrated approach on reducing our reliance on foreign workers is realistic. Like weaning babies off milk, it has to be done gradually. Going cold turkey with foreign workers is traumatic. The White Paper seeks to strike a balance, with the interests of Singaporeans and businesses in mind.

A reduced inflow of foreign workers will complement the impetus to raise productivity. Our businesses must adjust, and the Government will help them make the transition. Those which are structurally unable to adjust may have to rationalise their operations. Some may have to relocate. Affected Singaporean workers must be helped.

Members would have noted the letter from AustCham and eight other chambers of commerce in yesterday's papers on their members' concern about the more restrictive inflow of foreign workers. I know that foreign businesses in Singapore are watching our debate and our next steps closely. We should take the views of these chambers seriously and weigh their interests against our need to restructure the economy and depend less on foreign workers.

Writing the next chapter together

I APPLAUD the PM and his team for their courage and leadership in tabling this paper to sketch out the next chapter of the Singapore Story. The politically expedient alternative would have been to leave the issue to his successor to tackle.

But that is not the responsible way to govern Singapore. My experience in government has been to be upfront with Singaporeans, face the unpleasant facts and work together to overcome problems and crises.

PM and his team did the right thing by laying out the problems, the trade-offs, and our options in a transparent manner so that all Singaporeans can become more aware of our demographic destiny, debate it and build consensus on the way forward.

Indeed, as a people, we have come together and weathered successive tests of our unity, resolve and resilience. I remember the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Sars in 2003, the Sept11 terrorist attacks, the discovery of a terrorist cell in Singapore and recently, the 2008 sub-prime crisis.

I remember the anxiety and uncertainty of Singaporeans during these crises, and the tough decisions we had to take to overcome them. I remember most of all the fear in Singaporeans as Sars took its toll on the lives of Singaporeans and our economy. Our hotels went almost empty.

But I also recall the courage and sacrifice of doctors, nurses, taxi-drivers, grassroots leaders and a host of front-line staff, and how we all pulled through together as one people.

In all of these crises, the critical success factors were the leadership of the country, the bond between the Government and the people, our unity, our trust and support of each other.

In those crises, people could see and sense the immediate danger. We instinctively came together to tackle issues head on. We knew we would otherwise be worse off. We weathered the storms, emerging stronger from each.

The White Paper is the Government's plan to forestall an impending crisis. But unlike our previous crises, our demographic challenge unfolds imperceptibly over one or two decades like a slow, sinking ship. Yet, it is urgent, in that we need to decide how to act now to right the ship.

That is the difficulty for PM and his team. They have to think long term. They can see the population pyramid becoming unstable. They can see the silver tsunami coming. They can see the economy deflating at some point in the future. They fear the Singapore ship will sink.

But it is perfectly understandable that many Singaporeans worry more about the present than the future. They feel the effects of over-crowding, competition for schools and jobs, high home prices, and the large numbers of foreigners most keenly. They want these pressures to be eased now.

While we debate intensely the domestic implications of the White Paper, we must also remember that Singapore exists as part of a dynamic, competitive and constantly changing world.

Singapore is a price-taker in international economics and geopolitics, and always will be. We are sandwiched between the economic powerhouses of China and India, and other fast-growing economies. Whether we can continue to attract companies to provide good jobs for Singaporeans, and whether we can continue to shape international developments to our advantage, is contingent on Singapore remaining vibrant and successful.

If our institutions are not forward-looking, our economy flat, our society divided, Singapore will not be able to punch above its weight. It will lose its lustre and influence. Why would others invest in Singapore and in Singaporeans if our house is in disarray and we cannot solve the big problems confronting the country?

These are tough, fundamental challenges which the PM and his ministers will have to resolve. They will have to do this not only intellectually and logically, but also emotionally and sensitively.

They will have to dispel people's current and future fears, win their hearts and minds, while planning a better life for them.

DANGER IN DISARRAY

If our institutions are not forward-looking, our economy flat, our society divided, Singapore will not be able to punch above its weight. It will lose its lustre and influence. Why would others invest in Singapore and in Singaporeans if our house is in disarray and we cannot solve the big problems confronting the country?

- Mr Goh

S'pore sees lowest crime rate in 29 years

February 7, 2013, 8:00 pm

≫ Next: No Internet code of conduct for now; panel to focus on education

≪ Previous: The future of the Singapore Story

$

0

0

But two worrying trends last year: more molestation cases, bicycle thefts

By Tham Yuen-c And Lim Yan Liang, The Straits Times, 7 Feb 2013

SINGAPORE enjoyed its lowest crime rate in almost three decades last year, the Singapore Police Force announced yesterday.
But it also flagged two worrying trends: an increase in molestation cases, particularly onboard buses and trains, and bicycle thefts.

In all, the police handled 30,868 cases last year, about 2 per cent fewer than the previous year.

Taking into account population numbers, that translated to a crime rate of 581 cases per 100,000 people last year - the lowest in 29 years.

Still, the figures also showed that more women fell victim to molesters in crowded areas.

Incidents that happened on buses and trains went up by 34 per cent and made up one in 10 of all molestation cases last year.

"Should you be an unfortunate victim of outrage of modesty, don't stay silent," Superintendent Raymond Chong, the police's assistant director for community involvement, said yesterday. He added that uniformed presence has been stepped up at places identified as areas of concern.

"You need to attract as much attention as possible to get the members of the public around you to detain the perpetrator and call for police."

Bicycle thieves also had a busy year, having struck 1,216 times last year, compared to 1,137 in 2011.

This resulted in an increase in theft and related crimes, one of the six categories used as a barometer of crime here.

The other five categories, covering a gamut of crimes from burglary to robbery, cheating, murder, rape, vandalism and trespassing, all registered falls.

In particular, housebreaking and related crimes fell 16 per cent, and violent property crimes such as robbery fell 12 per cent. Both categories are at their 20-year lows.

The improved numbers come after the police increased patrols both on bicycles and on foot under the Community Policing System (Cops).

Unlicensed moneylending and youth crimes also declined after these were highlighted as problem areas in 2011 and more resources were poured into combating them.

Loan-shark harassment cases fell by a quarter last year, with many loan-shark runners caught by CCTV camera networks, which were rolled out in housing estates under Cops.

The director of the Public Affairs Department, Assistant Commissioner of Police (AC) Ng Guat Ting, also credited the strong community support and public vigilance for the improvement.

"Without the community, we wouldn't have been able to achieve this," said AC Ng. "I think we have strong support from them; they are actually our eyes and ears."

Mr Hri Kumar Nair, who heads the Government Parliamentary Committees for Home Affairs and Law, said this was a clear sign that the CCTV cameras were an effective crime prevention tool.

"It's to do with the heightened awareness: criminals know it won't be so easy to commit crimes and get away with it."

Measures like these helped the police to solve roughly half of the cases they investigated, said Criminal Investigation Department (CID) director Hoong Wee Teck.

"If you compare us with other major cities like Tokyo or Hong Kong, I think we are above them when it comes to clearance rate," said Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police Hoong.

For serious crimes here such as murder, the clearance rate is 100 per cent, he added.