Help people see the big picture
THE Population White Paper is unpopular because its projections go against our natural instincts and sentiments ("Positives from the population debate" by Mr Viswa Sadasivan; last Friday).To discuss it with rationality, we have to go deeper to find the true reasons that prompted its formulation.
With hindsight, population planning should have been carried out in three stages.
In stage one, we should discuss our long-term population trends, in particular, how to prevent Singapore from becoming a "retirement village".
Five or six of the IPS' "middle-path" scenarios, and some extreme ones, could be used for comparison. These scenarios were derived based on different assumptions of new births and intake of foreigners.
Give more time for the people to digest and discuss these consequences caused by low fertility rate and the fast-ageing population.
A deeper understanding of these trends and implications would help us realise the need to allow our population to grow, including from more births.
In stage two, we could focus on two or three middle-path scenarios and compare their various implications on the workforce, public expenditure, taxation, housing, transport, land use, environment, water and energy requirements and so on.
We could then discuss which scenario would give us the most acceptable balance between benefits and costs in 20, 30, and 40 years' time, and see how much inconvenience we are willing to tolerate.
Policymakers would then decide on one or perhaps two scenarios to use for drafting the White Paper.
In stage three, we should discuss boosting births, building infrastructure, and improving the environment and quality of life, as well as tackling problems brought on by a larger population with more foreign-born people.
We should fine-tune the model if needed.
The Government could have done more to help people visualise our future demographic challenges, and assist them in organising the bits and pieces of information together to see the total picture. I hope those who can see this big picture help the rest to see it.
Ng Ya Ken
ST Forum, 19 Feb 2013
Positives from the population debate
THE Government did the right thing by forcing us to address the critical issue of population planning. Then why did the debate create such a stir? There are three key reasons:
First, instead of being positioned as a paper for discussion, the Population White Paper came across as something that had already been decided. This sense of finality gave the impression that it was thrust upon us with little time to process the volume of information; that is, it was a fait accompli.
Second, the White Paper was based on the Government's logic and presented in a matter-of-fact tone that negated the possibility of other logic. This not only offended sensibilities but also discredited the Government's assertion that it does not have a "monopoly on wisdom".
Third, the process could have been more inclusive and deliberate, and seen to be so. The White Paper itself - with the consolidated arguments and conclusions of the Government - should have been discussed in a transparent manner with the people and stakeholders before being tabled in Parliament. This would have given the paper and its core arguments greater legitimacy.
What is important is that the discussion shows that Singaporeans do care; they do have clear viewpoints on what they want and are not comfortable with. If we were a nation of "quitters", this debate would not have mattered half as much.
That we are asking fundamental questions, and with conviction, is the best indication yet that we have matured significantly as a people.
The Government should be heartened by this and not feel threatened. Even if key recommendations are rejected by the people, it need not be seen as a rejection of the Government but a serious call for better listening and greater accountability.
There was a time when the people would accept without question what the Government said.
Today, the Government is expected to work harder at persuading, not just informing.
This will happen only if the Government listens with an open mind and truly believes that it does not have a monopoly on wisdom. This may translate to going more with what the people want - call it leap of faith, or political wisdom.
Going forward, with the population debate, we have an opportunity to build a collective reflex as a people, but only if we are prepared to set aside partisan views and act as Singaporeans.
Viswa Sadasivan
ST Forum, 15 Feb 2013
Why the White Paper must not fail
To derive an objective evaluation of the population White Paper, one must examine it from diverse angles, as it deals with many complex issues, not just on population and the economy but also our nation’s long-term survival.
This would mean that citizens in 2030 would have to pay two or three times the taxes now. We must not let this demographic Achilles heel cause the collapse of the nation. We must expand our citizen numbers now by having more babies and accepting more new citizens.
Adopting an aggressive population planning parameter imposes tougher challenges on urban planners and planners for water, energy, other supplies and infrastructure. It forces the Government to work smarter and harder.
The Government could have chosen an easier but irresponsible way: To not disclose future demographic trends, or to release population projections without any policy plans.
The White Paper is not a wish list to please the public or the business sector. It spells out measures we must take, regardless of how unpopular they may be. It lets people know and discuss the challenges ahead.
Actually, it should be renamed the “White Paper on population survival beyond 2030”, as its ultimate success would be judged by its ability to prevent us from leaving behind an uncompetitive, listless population for our descendants beyond 2030.
From this angle, the White Paper must not fail.
Ng Ya Ken
TODAY, 18 Feb 2013
Cultivate core attributes behind Singapore's success
IN THE past fortnight, there has been much discussion about the Population White Paper. An important aspect was the Singapore core.
My family and I have lived in Singapore for nearly two years. From what I have seen, the issue is not about Singaporeans on one side and foreigners on the other.
The Singapore core is, for me, best described by three attributes that have made the country so successful in the past.
The first attribute is tolerance, particularly racial and religious tolerance.
Having lived in Europe, the United States and Africa, I find Singapore the most tolerant place of all. Except for New York and London, I know of no other place where race and religion are so well respected and even celebrated together. Such tolerance has helped Singapore become a truly global and colourful place.
The second attribute is meritocracy. Performance, hard work and skills generally pay off for those who possess or apply them.
People with talent can enter the best universities and take up top public-sector positions; their social backgrounds do not matter. This has resulted in strong and effective institutions.
The third attribute is team spirit. I refer particularly to members of the first generation after Singapore's independence, who showed the willingness to forgo individual benefits for the sake of a bigger common goal.
This team spirit and commitment to work together have been the foundation upon which to define one vision and find solutions accepted by most.
All three core attributes are being tested today. The rising cost of living, together with the prospect of becoming rich through the allocation of capital rather than labour, poses all kinds of challenges.
Also, Singaporeans are striving for even bigger goals than just economic prosperity.
This is a good thing but should not come at the expense of the core attributes.
It is worthwhile for everyone living here to be aware of these attributes and to always cultivate them together.
Then the question of how many people will be living in Singapore by 2030 will become secondary.
Sebastian Langendorf
ST Forum, 19 Feb 2013
Taking a global view of population issue
The controversy over plans for a more crowded Singapore ignores global demographic trends and risks undermining the country's growth.
By Derwin Pereira, Published The Straits Times, 18 Feb 2013
THE thought of Singapore being inhabited by even a hypothetical 6.9 million people by 2030 has focused minds with a vengeance that is normally reserved for Toto or football match results. As in a lottery, there is a harrowing sense of winners and losers; as with football matches, visceral emotions have been brought into rough play.
But some of this angst would be eased if Singaporeans were to think of demographic change as inevitable. They have only to look at what is occurring elsewhere to place in perspective the choices which they will have to make if they want their country to survive and prosper.
This is hardly happening.
Demography is only one aspect of a Singaporean unwillingness to accept some of the international realities of life. Ironically, in spite of Singapore being a thoroughly globalised city-state, its economic success appears to have insulated its people from remembering what it means to be a part of the world. Singaporeans act as if bad things occur elsewhere; only good things take place, or are expected to happen, at home. Thus, difficult choices such as letting in more foreigners are relegated to other countries. Singapore, it appears, can get along just fine without having to make those choices.
What this mindset does is to arouse unhealthy expectations. A four-hour traffic jam in Jakarta and the political gridlock in America are the norm in those places. Indonesians and Americans get along with their lives as best as they can. But in Singapore, floods in Orchard Road turned into a natural disaster with an existential catastrophe looming behind them.
The feared flood of foreigners falls into the same category of national alarm. Why are 6.9 million people - if ever it comes to that number - unimaginable in Singapore if the public infrastructure can be revamped on time to meet demand, if immigrants can be integrated into society, and if multiracialism prevails? The assumption among those opposed to a larger Singapore is that substantial immigration will be fatal to a small country. But it is not space that matters; it is how space is allocated, how social interactions are lubricated, how people get used to more people that matter.
It is these demands that Singaporeans should address, as Hong Kong has done. Shying away from them is merely trying to postpone the inevitable.
Social systems that have confronted realities with foresight and planning have won. Those which find it difficult to do so are condemned to playing catch-up.
Consider the dangers of a shrinking working-age population in this context. The Rand Corporation, a United States-based think-tank which focuses on demography as a core international issue, notes that the world's working-age population, aged from 20 to 59, will grow by more than 25 per cent between 2010 and 2050. That is the good news.
The mixed news is that it will grow rapidly in some places but will shrink in others. In East Asia, which includes China, the number of working-age people will contract by nearly 25 per cent, from 938 million to 715 million. In South Asia, including India, by contrast, it will expand by more than an astonishing 50 per cent, from 833 million to 1.3 billion. In Central Africa, it will nearly triple - from 328 million to 943 million.
Such demographic shifts will have not only economic but also strategic results. A study published by the Rand Corp - Global Demographic Change and Its Implications for Military Power, by Martin Libicki, Howard Shatz and Julie Taylor - finds that the US, exclusively among the large affluent nations, will continue to witness modest increases in its working-age population because of replacement-level fertility rates and a likely return to "vigorous" levels of immigration.
In Europe and Japan, however, working-age populations are expected to fall by 10 per cent to 15 per cent by 2030, and 30 per cent to 40 per cent by 2050. Consequently, the US will contribute a larger percentage of the population of its Atlantic and Pacific alliances in the next four decades. The bottom line: the US will remain a healthy global player compared to Europe and Japan.
In Singapore, too, the focus should be on remaining healthy, as an economic entity that can be defended militarily. Common sense says that the proportion of the working-age population will be critical to the future of the country, particularly as its neighbours improve on their economic performance.
If higher birth rates, increased productivity and getting older people back into employment - all of which are legitimate targets in themselves - are insufficient to sustain the country's economic momentum, immigration must be seen as a necessary top-up of the population.
But if the attitude is to prevent or severely curtail immigration at all costs and then argue backwards to finding alternative solutions that might or might not work, the consequences could be calamitous.
Who would be responsible in 2030 for wrong choices made now? What, if anything, could be done then to get the country back on track?
The need of the hour is for Singaporeans to internationalise their minds. It is human nature to be parochial but enlightened self- interest demands a broader view of trends. Changing patterns of demography are an international phenomenon from which Singapore cannot hope to escape.
Nobody wants Singapore to change out of recognition because of foreigners arriving in hordes but the Singapore that we know and cherish will change out of recognition if low birth rates and lagging productivity undermine the economy and society.
The writer, a former Straits Times journalist, heads Pereira International, a Singapore-based political consulting firm.
Keeping the Malay-Muslim community as a potent core
By Abdul Halim Kader, Published The Straits Times, 18 Feb 2013
LEADERS and organisations from the Malay-Muslim community have yet to take a stand and to present their views on the White Paper on Population collectively.
But already there is an online buzz, with some focus and interest groups, and individuals expressing concern about the White Paper's impact on the community.
These online views are not necessarily representative of the entire community's sentiments.
In pondering over the White Paper, we will need to first remind ourselves that Singapore's society is based on social cohesion, unity, meritocracy and economic stability. As such, we should refrain from being emotional or be too quick to judge its contents.
Instead, we have an opportunity to give constructive and honest feedback rather than to cynically depict it as marginalising the Malay-Muslim minority.
Our leaders and organisations must take the lead in a concerted effort to improve the well-being of the whole community, and to ensure that everyone has a chance to attain greater success.
Even with our reduced numbers in the years ahead, the quality of the community can flourish and blossom to face the challenges of the future.
The most important challenge is: How to ensure that with the projected influx of foreigners and the anticipated economic uncertainties, Singaporeans are provided with the best jobs and the best homes. A way must also be found to ensure that the young remain rooted to Singapore.
So, while the exchanges on the White Paper have led to frank views and ideas - including a number from the Malay-Muslim community - the discourse must not give rise to divisions within Singapore society.
Since the White Paper is about charting a better future for all, the Malay-Muslim community will first need to acknowledge that despite its progress and achievements over the last three decades, it has not eradicated problem areas.
Dysfunctional families, drug abuse and juvenile delinquency remain tough challenges.
The Government has acknowledged the progress made in improving these problem areas. However, much work still needs to be done. We need to unite within the community to eradicate these problems and find effective sustainable solutions.
Thus, while it is understandable for the community to be concerned about a shrinking percentage of the Malay population here, the focus should really not be on dwindling numbers, but on levelling up capabilities within the community.
How can our community contribute and become more competitive to achieve more and make significant contributions to society? Strength does not necessarily come with numbers, but unity does.
We must continue to evolve, upgrade, participate, engage and be prepared to face future challenges.
It is essential not to whine about our circumstances but rise up to the occasion and focus on being relevant rather than being redundant.
This should be our focus:To unite as a community working with other communities to ensure the Singaporean Identity is embedded in our young, to continue to be a distinct "core" regardless of our percentage in the population, and being rooted in our faith and beliefs that make us who we are.
In responding to the White Paper, let us firmly keep faith in Singapore's system of meritocracy which ensures equal opportunity to excel for all.
The Malay-Muslim community, though small, should not have qualms about playing a significant role and contributing to society.
It is up to us to become the "cili padi" (a small but potent chilli and a favourite ingredient in local dishes) that packs a real punch in the recipe of Singapore's success - by playing a more significant role in the future of our economic and social development.
Beyond our community's particular concerns and what needs to be done, we should also be engaged in the general discourse on the White Paper, and contribute constructive ideas, say, on the foreign workforce we will need.
Many Singaporeans have questioned and even doubted the need for a large number. What is needed is a road map that prepares Singaporeans to face the next few decades, and our community must actively contribute to it.
The writer is the president of Taman Bacaan, a voluntary welfare organisation.
Anchor citizens' dialogue in central public space
By Rolf Ludwig Schoen, Published The Straits Times, 18 Feb 2013
SINGAPORE'S rain trees, sunlit CBD towers and tropical evening walks around and on the upper deck of the Marina Bay Sands hotel with its stunning views of the Gardens by the Bay and the big ships are always great.
But while the integrated resorts are welcomed as centrepieces of urban transformation, are these the ultimate meeting places for Singaporeans, a place for a growing community spirit? Is this the real heart of town?
The philosophy behind such projects in Hong Kong, Sydney and elsewhere has a touch of Las Vegas or Macau. It steers our aspiration in a wrong direction, with casinos, glamour and international luxury lifestyles. Such monumental settings have symbolic character, influencing the way we think and uncovering who we are.
In many ways, Singapore shares similar difficulties faced by most Western and developed Asian societies. Remarkably, the politicians and the intellectual elite are aware of the challenges and talk openly about these.
The Prime Minister introducing "Our Singapore Conversation" is therefore the right thing to do. This "major rethink of politics, directions and values" not only deals with the symptoms but also with the basics.
Energy conservation, better use of natural resources, more efficiency, better technical knowledge, better universities, more skilled and career-minded people, a higher birth rate - all of this is very important.
Recently, I was asked if it would be possible to have 6.9 million people living in Singapore in 2030 as foreseen by the Population White Paper. I have never experienced Singapore as too crowded and with too many buildings, so I don't see why this should cause any major problems.
Architects and town planners can find the right solutions and, despite many difficulties, I see this as a task about quantity. In Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo and Europe, I have seen much denser cities. Singapore is still in a better situation.
But we first have to question the predominant philosophy, the reason for present problems. For Singapore to prosper in years to come, it needs a stable society with a strong community spirit. How is the approach to career, success and money on the one hand and to fellow citizens and society on the other?
This requires a permanent and long-lasting dialogue. It is only worth it and believable when real changes with obvious and visible results are achieved. Singapore has to prove "we really mean it, we take action and go ahead".
The challenge in a bigger city with more people is to give them a well-arranged neighbourhood for living, where they have privacy and can feel at home, and where they willingly interact with their fellow citizens.
This is a much more sophisticated task about quality.
Visible structures throughout town have to offer different characteristics where you can generate a "home" feeling and identify yourself as well as with your neighbourhood and Singapore in general.
At stake is much more than "green, clean and safe" - it is social cohesion.
Every environment, especially a town, forms its inhabitants. It is like a didactic tool; it gives you orientation and tells you with thousands of images and signs what kind of game is on and who will be among the winners. We should not underestimate strong messages that come from the visual landscape. The main zeitgeist-philosophy of a glamorous illuminated city is like a permanent brainwash, weakening our relationship with traditional values. The impressive CBD skyline and exciting Marina Bay are icons defining Singapore's main messages.
Urban designers have to change priorities, as Singapore needs "Our Singapore plaza", a new central location like a Greek agora or a civic forum in the heart of the city.
It needs this public square for all citizens, a permanent location for Our Singapore Conversation, where the nation talks about social values, about "Hope, heart and home", and brings people together from all ethnic backgrounds. It will be where important celebrations take place, and politicians should consider this civic precinct as their communication platform.
This mixed-use project should have restaurants and shops but the prevailing motto is "We in Singapore". This is not a place where people get told what they have to do, but where they can participate, feel at home and enjoy being citizens of a remarkable commonwealth.
Here, "urban" stands for spiritual qualities which launch ideas, discussions and bring people together - a place of better understanding within the township.
The politicians and the designers don't have to look at Europe or the United States. As far I know, there is no outstanding model anywhere, whatever the experts say. This is new territory.
Singapore could literally form a real integrated resort for all citizens. The city can become a mecca for urban designers, town planners, architects and politicians. They can look at how the Lion City links its new attitude and city dialogue to public spaces, institutions and a plenitude of different events.
The city gets to develop more of its own personality and I don't see why this should negatively affect all other common objectives.
The writer is a German journalist and lecturer in urban design who has studied public-space projects around the world and takes part in Berlin's reconstruction.Related
