↧
Workers' Party wins Punggol East by-election
↧
VWOs speak up at S'pore dialogue
Teachers, students and parents also share views at Our SG Conversation
By Derrick Ho & Lim Yi Han, The Sunday Times, 27 Jan 2013
Volunteers, school teachers, students and parents had their turn at two separate sessions in Our Singapore Conversation yesterday.
Singapore's social welfare system and volunteerism were among the key issues raised by 45 volunteers, teachers and district councillors at the session held by the North East Community Development Council.
Participants from volunteer welfare organisations (VWOs) expressed the need for increased funding for their programmes. They also proposed that the Government increase tax rebates for companies to encourage more to give back to society.
Mr Samuel Koh, 56, executive director of Christian Outreach to the Handicapped, said the session was helpful as there is a "lack of attention" given to the VWO sector. He said the Government should provide more financial and infrastructure support to help set up social service centres.
Responding to the call for more funding, Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Mr Teo Ser Luck, who is also Mayor for North East District, said that some VWOs should be given funding to help them expand and carry out their programmes.
Teachers, on the other hand, suggested that secondary school education be made compulsory to prevent at-risk youth from straying. Currently, education is compulsory up to Primary 6.
They were split into 10 groups and discussed the issues that youth may face in the future.
The dialogue at Whitley Secondary School in Bishan was held in conjunction with the Bishan North Edusave awards presentation.
Many participants said that youth in the future will benefit as Singapore becomes more technologically advanced and globalised.
However, some argued that stress levels will increase as people compete to keep up with the country's high standards of living.
In discussing their ideal Singapore, participants called for greener and less crowded living spaces.
There were also calls for a more compassionate society, especially for the elderly and the poor. Others also raised the issue of personal responsibility, particularly on social media.
"I'm not okay with how people react on social media. In Singapore we have a tendency to complain... it makes us an ugly people," said 19-year-old student Yustynn Panicker, from Anglo-Chinese Junior College.
Minister of State for Transport and Finance and MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC, Mrs Josephine Teo, who led the discussions, said: "If you want a Singapore that is kinder and gentler, let's go make it... It's up to us to make it happen."
↧
↧
Shifting focus from money to family
Ease up on rat race, spare a thought for well-being: Ex-chief statistician
By Cheong Suk-Wai, The Straits Times, 26 Jan 2013
SINGAPORE'S former chief statistician Paul Cheung has the long view on the Government's efforts to encourage married couples to have more children.
That is because he was in charge of reversing the Republic's Stop at Two policy to cap population growth, as director of the Ministry of Health's Population Planning Unit in 1986.
He continued to track efforts to promote procreation as head of the Department of Statistics from 1991 to 2004.
Hong Kong-born Professor Cheung, 59, was then recruited by the United Nations to be its chief statistician. After almost nine years in New York, he returned to teach at the National University of Singapore's Department of Social Work earlier this month.
In an interview this week, he gave his views on the baby boosters announced on Monday and government policy in this area over the years.
What surprises you about this latest round of baby-boosting measures?
I am not surprised at all by these. Since 1986, the Government's population policy has had two focal points: the first is that the family is central to Singapore and the second is that the Government must build enabling social infrastructure to support childbearing and parenting efforts. Over time, and systematically, this infrastructure has become more and more elaborate. It is about building a house and making it better and better.
How did the Government start building this house in 1986?
By aggressively generating childcare places as it wanted married couples to have larger families. But it did not touch maternity leave then because the timing was not right.
How has the design of this house changed, if at all?
The Government is still building on it because, ultimately, it is still constrained by its target, that is, women who are of childbearing age... What is new about these measures is the public housing priority for families with children who are 16 years or younger. This is a very sensitive topic and the Government had not dared touch that before. So this measure is a very strong signal from the Government about its commitment to helping young families. But I don't think the pool of people eligible for housing priority will be big because most couples register for HDB flats the moment they marry; also, I'd be very alarmed if you have a kid who is 16 and you still don't have your HDB flat.
How effective might 2013's baby-boosting measures be?
The problem is that all of these are incremental adjustments, such as making some allowances more generous. Singaporeans will appreciate that, but these are not measures that would trigger young couples here to have their first child earlier in life. They have two obstacles to overcome first - getting married and deciding to have children. We want them to have their first child early so that they can have a few more down the road.
These latest measures won't really be significant because the mindset of Singapore's childbearing population has changed. There are currently about 450,000 women who are aged between 25 and 40 years. If you count only those among them who are married, they number slightly more than 300,000. Now, 75 per cent of this target group have A-level qualifications or higher. Ten years ago, only 40 per cent of this target group were that well-educated.
At the same time, the census data shows that slightly more among these women are not getting married, and so are holding back on having their first child today, than those in their group 10 years ago. The question is: What will lead them to give birth earlier, and have more children? These well-educated women are probably not looking so much for income as they are for someone willing to share the burden of bringing up the baby.
It would be interesting to ask the present lot of women how high childbearing is on their list of life choices.
How did Singaporeans react to the reversal of Stop at Two?
There was a boom initially when we removed the lid in 1986. And then 1988 was a Dragon Year, which saw many more babies. What's interesting is that those 1988 babies are now of childbearing age, so we will likely see more babies in future. They were born after Stop at Two was stopped, and are also fully aware that we need a larger citizen core but the question is: Will they do it?
I don't know what the ideal family size in Singapore is these days; it used to be three kids at most.
Young couples say they now don't have time for even one baby.
This brings up a larger question: What is the essence of Singapore society? Women are now getting all the good things they had hoped for in the past, but ultimately, what shapes their decision-making process is the larger society. In New York City, where I was for nine years, people are not so hung up on money. But in Singapore, it is interesting that money seems a key driver of our lives. Can we move away from being so competitive to focus on our well-being, which would include stepping back and enjoying our families? This may be the most critical element in Singapore's discussion on procreation.
But when Singapore's only resource is its people, how can it ease off on the productivity pedal to produce babies?
It is about determination, and work-life balance is key. New Yorkers work hard but at the same time enjoy being with their kids. So the question for Singaporeans is: Why do some people not treasure family any more?
When Singapore began reversing Stop at Two in the late 1980s, it also began welcoming foreigners more aggressively. Was that to increase its citizen core?
From what I understand of the Government's policy, it was more a question of bringing talent in for Singapore to prosper than a population target. Immigration has never been a main anchor of population policy here; your citizen core should come from indigenous population growth. If we really wanted to jack up the citizenship numbers, Singapore could bring in many more new citizens, but how many among them will really have roots in Singapore?
On the other hand, we critically need a flow of foreign manpower for Singapore to prosper. But we should not confuse our critical need for this continued influx with the enlargement of our citizen core.
Foreigners are not necessarily immigrants. The question is: How should we manage this flow of foreigners? It's a topic ripe for the Singapore Conversation.
BEYOND AFFORDABILITY
These well-educated women are probably not looking so much for income as they are for someone willing to share the burden of bringing up the baby.
It would be interesting to ask the present lot of women how high childbearing is on their list of life choices.
- Prof Cheung
↧
Really, must parents act so entitled?
By Rachel Chang, The Sunday Times, 27 Jan 2013
One quality I've always considered integral in the Singaporean identity is an ironclad sense of entitlement.
Whatever we are given, we always want to know why we didn't get more. Maybe our schools have taught us too well that critical analysis is the only appropriate response to any statement.
And the most entitled people in this entitled population are Singaporean parents. They're fuelled by a potent mix of martyrdom and self-pity, salted over by a lack of sleep and intense body anxiety.
Because the national discourse is so relentlessly self-flagellating about the low birth rate, they are simultaneously self-congratulatory about having given their lives to something "noble", while intensely aware of how they are "losing out" by choosing to have kids in a childless nation.
This is like a multiple personality disorder, which they cope with by being convinced that they should be compensated twice over for starting a family.
Canvassing reactions to the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package for the news stories published last week was like taking a museum tour of Middle Class Entitled Parents. Those in this group seem to live by the creed that "to those whom much has been given, much more should be given".
In Singapore, primary and secondary school education is already almost free, and there are subsidies for pre-school for low-income families.
But the Entitled Parent seems to think that I, a childless taxpayer, should also pay for their childcare and kindergarten costs.
That's fine with me actually - as long as we also split your kid's pay cheque when he starts work.
And when told that they can rent subsidised flats from the Government while waiting for their own, some wondered why the flats couldn't be free, or why they couldn't be given priority for private housing.
I can hear it now, the favourite riposte of the childbearing: You don't understand because you don't have a kid.
It's true that I don't have personal knowledge of starting a family while running the Singapore rat race.
And I don't mean to denigrate the miracle of childbirth. In fact, I actually do want to be a mother one day.
But I don't see why the passage of another human being through my birth canal would magically entitle me to special treatment.
I respect parents and all the sacrifices they make for their kids, but come on, they're not amputees running a marathon, or quadriplegics painting watercolours with a brush in the mouth. I don't feel sufficiently moved by the plight of Singaporean parents to donate to their cause, which they seem to expect me to do. A tuition arms race and "overly hard exam papers" somehow do not arouse in me the sadness and desire to help that abused animals or victims of natural disasters do.
I must have a heart made of stone. (By the way, examinations are supposed to be difficult.)
When Singaporean parents ask for more, what I hear are people expecting to be paid for their adult choices.
But if that were the way the world works, then I am waiting on reimbursement for the holidays I've taken and the books and DVDs I've bought to fill up all my child-free time.
These won't even pay off in the future, as kids will. They're supposed to grow up and take care of you in your old age, right? My shoe collection won't do that.
But when I choose to buy a pair of shoes, I don't whine about a heels-unfriendly environment, or the lack of adequate shoe storage space in my flat, or shifting social mores that discourage shoe ownership.
The choice is mine, as are the consequences.
Don't get me wrong. I do think that improving the country's birth rate is an important societal goal.
But it isn't a pure public good that the state has the responsibility to pay for, like national defence.
It's more like tertiary education - there is some public benefit to society, but a lot of it is private benefit. Just like the way a university degree will pay for itself (unless you're an Arts student) in future income, kids will also pay you back.
Literally, like when they send the monthly cheque to the old folk's home. Or figuratively, in joy and hope, so on and so forth. Laughs and life lessons, et cetera.
Parents can certainly look forward to a meaningful, fulfilling life when they embark on the child-rearing journey, and I look forward to it one day too.
But that's about all they should feel entitled to.
Everything else is a bonus, and the least us childless taxpayers should get is a thank you.
↧
Welcome to godPAPa's budding welfare state
Connect the dots and you get a picture of a society's changing family policy
By Chua Mui Hoong, The Sunday Times, 27 Jan 2013
Amid all the entertainment and excitement of the Punggol East by-election - Singapore's fourth election in two years - it's easy to miss the significance of the moves to promote marriage and parenthood.
Over the past week, a slew of measures were announced: Couples with babies will get $2,000 more in cash bonuses. Couples with children get priority for public housing. New fathers get state-funded paternity leave.
Health insurance for children will be expanded to include medical conditions from birth.
Childcare subsidies for families earning up to $7,500 will go up on a sliding scale, so that those earning $2,500 and below get 99 per cent of fees covered and pay around $3 a month to enrol their children in childcare.
Each of these policies marks a significant change in itself. And if you connect the dots made up by the patchwork of measures, the picture you get is of a society in the midst of a complete overhaul on how it views and supports the family. Singapore's social policy is undergoing a paradigm shift.
And the state, far from being a distant rich relative not lifting a finger to help beleaguered families, is now stepping in as godparent to ease the financial burdens of middle-income families.
The Government doesn't go around trumpeting this shift. Nor will it use that much-dreaded term, the welfare state. But in substance, Singapore's family policy is inching quietly leftwards, closer to that of Western welfare states in the way it extends the social safety net to cover middle-income families.
A capitalist society's approach to family welfare is straightforward: give workers a job, pay them enough to fend for themselves. The individual and family take care of their sick and old. This was Singapore in the 60s.
A residual or minimalist welfare state adds some protection: subsistence-level benefits for the very sick and very old who can't work and have no family to care for them. This was Singapore in the 70s to the 80s.
Singapore added more layers of protection in the late 80 and 90s. notably the pooling of health risks via MediShield and introducing three to six months' cash handouts for the jobless after the Asian financial crisis.
In the last few years, Singapore's social policy has undergone a more fundamental shift.
The Workfare Income Supplement was groundbreaking for introducing - and then institutionalising - the notion that even an able-bodied person with a job might need state support to augment his wages.
Thus began the shift towards a more pervasive social safety net covering not only the old and indigent but also the middle income, the young and the able-bodied.
Last year's move to extend subsidies for elder care and nursing homes to households with per capita incomes up to $2,200 was the next big shift. That brought two-thirds of families within the net. This established the principle that family subsidies are no longer just for the lower-income. It will become accepted - and expected - that the state will provide financial support for the majority of families caring for the aged sick.
Last week's slew of subsidies expands that approach to cover families with children. The Government is paying for paternity leave, in effect reimbursing employers who may otherwise be reluctant to expand maternity or paternity benefits.
In the past, families bore the risk and expense of giving birth to a sick child, carrying the financial burden over the lifetime of the child.
Now, the baby gets automatically enrolled into a health insurance plan that covers conditions from birth. Risk is thus socialised and pooled, not left to individual families.
What if a family can't afford to pay $400 in childcare centre fees each month? Godpapa says: Here's $105 million a year to top up the subsidy so families earning below $7,500 pay only $3 to $215 in fees a month.
Pre-school is becoming nearly as cheap as primary and secondary school - great news for social mobility.
The measures shift some of the risks and costs of raising children from individual parents to the community, and to the state.
What next?
It should now do more for the middle-aged chronic sick and those with pre-existing medical conditions who otherwise face financial distress.
Many in this age group face old age with zero or inadequate health insurance. They may be covered by existing employers' health plans, but these stop when you quit or retire - and no new insurer will cover you. (I know, because as a middle-aged cancer survivor, I belong to this group.)
Should a major illness strike, you'll be left dependent on your basic MediShield, Medisave, retirement savings. And after that? Sell your home, depend on charity or declare bankruptcy.
The cost of raising children is increasingly being pooled with society and the state. That includes the cost of fertility treatments, childbearing-related hospitalisation, parental leave, child health insurance, education from pre-school to tertiary.
The usual justification for taxes to pay for investment in children is to say that children are a public good: They form the future generation of taxpayers who will keep the economy - and the future welfare state - humming.
But this argument breaks down if the benefits of raising children remain private, and children support only their own biological parents. Singaporeans also have individual retirement accounts in the Central Provident Fund, so are not dependent on future generations for pensions.
So the only way to get buy-in for godpapa's creeping welfare state is to assure those of us without children that while we help bear the costs of raising other people's children today, we will be rewarded in old age when today's babies become taxpayers and return the favour by funding our retirement and health-care needs in future.
If my taxes today fund $2 billion a year for 30-year-old Mr Tan and Mrs Tan and their baby, I want a guarantee that the Tans and Baby will be paying taxes to fund, say, my nursing home place, in 25 years' time.
↧
↧
Why fertility measures matter to all
By Teo You Yenn, Published TODAY, 28 Jan 2013
The revised and upsized Marriage and Parenthood Package will no doubt please Singaporeans who are planning to marry and have children.
What effect it will have on the rest of us, who are either not at this stage in our life-course or do not immediately fit the model of life required by the schemes, both remains to be seen and is a question we should ask.
Two questions follow, the first being: Are the schemes likely to lead to significantly different outcomes in terms of demographic trends? The answer depends more on long-term trends in policy orientations than on the specific schemes at hand.
People make marriage and childbearing decisions based on a complex confluence of explicit and tacit factors — job prospects, suitable partners, existing responsibilities, evaluations of their place in society and aspirations for the future.
People envision the future based on their existing circumstances and by gauging how they fare against social norms; in Singapore, the range of choices and behaviours marked as “ideal” are narrow.
Our current knowledge about the low fertility issue in Singapore suggests there is high desire for marriage and children that does not translate into practice. Combine this with over two decades of pronatalist policies, and we can safely conclude that what has been done thus far has not been terribly effective.
The extent to which the newest measures can achieve their ostensible aims of earlier marriage and higher fertility, therefore, depend on where they are headed, and the degree to which they move towards creating a set of social conditions where people can envision themselves and their loved ones leading secure and fulfilling lives.
Such a shift in societal conditions would have to go beyond changing the immediate financial circumstances of young couples thinking of marriage and children — and would certainly shape the lives of people beyond this small group.
TOWARDS THE GOOD LIFE?
This leads to a second question: Do the latest measures signal a radically different set of principles, a significant shift in worldview? In other words, do we see signs that we are moving towards creating conditions where people can imagine good lives?
There are some obvious shifts: We see some movement towards recognising that caregiving and employment should not be the privileges or burdens of one gender. There is greater sensitivity towards the disproportionate challenges faced by working mothers.
On the other hand, there are important limits: The principles of differentiated deservedness and individualised solutions remain highly salient. The right to support for children continues to be tightly tethered to marital status, citizenship, employment and, despite the one-week paternity leave, gender.
The narrow criteria for qualifying for each scheme and the differentiated benefits compel people to think in terms of “What’s in it for me here?” or alternately, “Why don’t I get that?” It orients people towards individual benefits and narrow self-interests.
This obscures, for example, the fact that providing more subsidies for childcare, while important, does not altogether address the problem of schools demanding from and rewarding kids for qualities that they cannot attain solely from formal schooling.
In Singapore, access to housing, education, healthcare, retirement funds, et cetera are premised on Singaporeans’ self-reliance through employment and familial membership. Therefore, the capacity to form a family publicly recognised as deserving support has long-range consequences throughout one’s life course.
When the right to family — both its formation and the autonomy to parcel out its members’ responsibilities — is unequal among citizens, it is hard to speak of an inclusive society wherein members are equal stakeholders.
When policies differentiate citizens along multiple lines — reminding them at each turn that they qualify not as citizens, but only when they are this type or that type of citizen — this poses challenges to forging citizenship ties based on mutual obligations among societal members.
Instead, we develop zero-sum mentalities — fearing that what benefits others is costly to us. In these ways, the principle of differentiated deservedness that continues to be embedded within marriage and parenthood measures affects us all.
Dr Teo You Yenn is an Assistant Professor in Sociology at the Nanyang Technological University.
↧
Punggol East By-election: Analysis & Reactions
What lies ahead in politics after Punggol East
There are implications for the PAP, WP and other parties as they gear up for GE2016
By Han Fook Kwang, The Straits Times, 27 Jan 2013
The Workers' Party's win in Punggol East will mean many different things to many people.
Does it signal that the opposition tide is even stronger today than during the 2011 General Election? What does it say about the ruling party's ability to hold the ground?
Here are my five takes on what the result means.
First, it reinforced the conventional wisdom that a by-election favours the opposition, perhaps even more so in this new normal. With the WP victorious now in two by-elections since GE2011, it has been even more firmly entrenched as the other party in an emerging two-party system.
The result in Punggol East shows that all the issues that surfaced in GE2011 and which caused the ruling party to lose Aljunied GRC have not gone away and might even have gained greater force, especially the desire for a stronger opposition presence in Parliament.
Neither have the hot-button issues on immigration, housing, public transport and health care been resolved to voters' satisfaction. It might be the case that whatever changes the Government makes to these policies will not satisfy voters who simply want more alternative voices.
If this is indeed the case, and the ruling party acknowledges it, then it may have to change its approach and accept that no matter what it does to these policies, it will lose some electoral ground until a new political balance is reached between the People's Action Party (PAP) and the opposition. Indeed it might have to bite this bullet sooner rather than later if, in its desire to hold the political ground, it becomes overly populist in its policies and alienates even its own supporters.
Second, the WP's climb up the totem pole will not be a straightforward one. Already in this campaign it has had to deal with unhappy voices in the opposition camp over its refusal to cooperate with the other parties. This will be a continuing theme for some years because the opposition landscape isn't settled yet, with new parties and personalities emerging.
In a first-past-the-post system like Singapore's, the norm, going by the experience elsewhere, is for a two-party system to eventually emerge. The other parties know that the window of opportunity will become smaller as the WP gains in strength. So watch out for opposition politics becoming more fractious and competitive in the years ahead. Punggol East gave a glimpse of what's in store.
Third, this by-election was a good test run for all parties of the issues that will frame GE2016 and how they may address them. The PAP has to come to terms with the reality that a campaign based on the message that it has delivered on its promise of dealing with issues like immigration and housing has not delivered the result. How will it counter the claim that its policy changes were the result of pressure from the opposition?
But the WP also needs to watch its flank, from counter-attacks from both the ruling party and other opposition parties that its performance in Parliament as an alternative voice to the Government has been found wanting.
This is a serious charge because it goes to the heart of the WP's appeal to voters that its presence in Parliament is essential to keep the Government accountable to the people. I expect it to work hard to respond to these criticisms by GE2016.
Fourth, there were no surprises in the type of candidates put forth by the parties. The ruling party's Dr Koh Poh Koon couldn't be a more typical product of the PAP school - well educated and with a successful career. WP's Ms Lee Li Lian was seen as more typically heartlander, less successful academically and someone who had to struggle harder to make it.
The PAP's loss would be of great concern to the party not so much because it was unable to retain Punggol East but with regard to its ability to attract future candidates. It must hope this result will not deter even more people from joining its ranks particularly because it seeks out mainly people with successful careers in their 30s and 40s like Dr Koh.
For the PAP, the ability to attract committed people into the party and who are able to win elections poses a far more serious challenge than any of the hot-button issues. The PAP has always claimed that it has a superior team able to anticipate and solve problems. It now has to find a team able to do that, and also win elections.
For the WP, this win will encourage better qualified people to join the party. Expect a stronger line-up of WP candidates for GE 2016 and, as important, of supporters and helpers who will work the ground for the party. The challenge for the WP leadership is managing its enlarged ranks, yet keeping a tight rein on party discipline and organisation.
Fifth, Punggol East as an electoral contest and whatever the result was a sideshow. The main show and the one that all the parties, especially the PAP and the WP, are gearing up for in a big way is GE2016.
In fact, in a perverse sort of way, winning in Punggol East might make it harder for the WP come 2016. This is because in this new normal, there is still a large number of undecided voters.
The conventional wisdom is that the PAP can count on about 30 per cent of loyal voters while another 30 per cent are hardcore opposition supporters. The remaining 30-40 per cent swing voters can go either way depending on the prevailing issues, the quality of candidates and the general mood in the country during election time. Among the swing voters, a sizeable number believe a stronger opposition presence is good for Singapore but not so strong as to displace the PAP as the Government.
Because the WP won in Punggol East, some of them might vote the other way in GE2016 for fear that the opposition tide has become so strong, the ruling party might get booted out of office. If the WP had lost, on the other hand, there might be a swing in its favour from those who fear the PAP might again become too dominant.
So winning has its downside?
Stranger things have happened in politics.
Living with voters’ existential angst
By Eugene KB Tan, Published TODAY, 29 Jan 2013
Was the Punggol East by-election result a rough but reliable reflection of Singaporeans’ assessment of how the People’s Action Party (PAP) and the Workers’ Party (WP) have performed since the 2011 General Election (GE)?
Perhaps. But we should be careful not to extrapolate the results as being a barometer of national sentiment.
Nonetheless, the results are a useful snapshot of the dynamic political situation. More importantly, what does it signal next for the PAP, the WP, the Opposition in general and Singaporeans?
The PAP’s performance at the polls has been attributed to the “by-election effect” in which voters, knowing that the PAP remains in charge regardless of the outcome of the by-election, were more inclined to vote for the WP to put pressure on the Government.
But this assertion about tactical voting behaviour is simplistic. It does not give sufficient credence to the unsettled ground realities and residents’ actual sentiments, and how they impacted political and voting behaviour.
It assumes that voters will vote differently in the next GE — which must be held by Jan 9, 2017— because much more will be at stake.
True, the by-election factor and other issues would have weighed on voters’ minds — including estate amenities, the stalled Rivervale Plaza upgrading and transport connectivity — but the results may very well also reflect the deep existential angst felt by a wider swathe of Singaporeans — especially among the younger, “sandwich” middle-class demographic that was represented in Punggol East.
RETURN TO GRASSROOTS
We are at the crossroads economically, socially and politically. The Singapore development model, which worked very well in our fledgling days, has to evolve with the changes in society.
Economic success alone is grossly insufficient to define what Singapore is and what it means to be Singaporean. The price of our success is increasingly being questioned.
The PAP urgently needs to connect more with this existential angst, anxiety and aspirations of voters who feel a growing sense of alienation. It needs to return to its roots as a grassroots party.
The PAP must go back to being a political party in form and substance. The long years of a depoliticised polity in Singapore suggest the PAP has lost much of the art and the craft of winning the hearts and minds of voters.
In this by-election, for example, the party’s rallies featured policy-style speeches — rational in signature but failing to excite or connect effectively with voters in the way the WP did. The WP also tapped deep into disaffection over lingering hot-button issues from GE 2011.
The PAP cannot just function as the alter ego of the Government. A government, primarily, has to govern and lead. It can afford to be faceless and bureaucratic.
But a political party has to be the nuts-and-bolts of walking and working the ground; it has to emote genuinely and respond to the fears, concerns and aspirations of the average Singaporean.
It has to talk with, not to, the people. It must inspire the electorate to its ideas, policies and vision.
The question for the PAP is, how.
SWING TO VALUES
If negative sentiments are allowed to fester, the PAP will continue to lose ground as Singaporeans are now less the homo economicus. Post-material concerns and aspirations are becoming more important to us.
We are shifting from being value-driven to being values-centred, even as material well-being remains important as a fact of life. In other words, even as the average Singaporean is deeply concerned with his “interests”, a persistent obsession with the “bottom line” to motivate people is too instrumental. The ideals of fairness and justice matter in building trust, confidence and a sense of belonging to this nation.
The slew of policy measures to deal with the hot-button issues does not seem to have adequately assuaged Singaporeans. Sure, it takes time for those measures to show their effect and true worth.
But policy tweaks will not be sufficient, given the existential angst. The limitations of our development model require a more fundamental rethink of long-standing policies.
For example, with the White Paper on Population due to be debated in Parliament next month, it will not be enough for the PAP Government to tout that it has managed and restricted the inflow of immigrants to deal with the concerns of Singaporeans about immigration.
More importantly, what is the impact of immigration on the Singaporean identity? Do we value and nurture Singaporeans at the workplace when immigration provides an off-the-shelf solution to our demographic woes, and the desire for quick success? Is the immigration policy unwittingly encouraging discrimination against Singaporeans at all levels, weakening what it means to be Singaporean?
PLURALITY INEVITABLE?
With the big swing against it in Punggol East in a mere 20 months, will the PAP now adopt the politics of appeasement, given that the next GE has all the settings of being the watershed polls?
At the same time, one view is that no matter what policy solutions the PAP offers, voters will want a greater Opposition voice in Parliament. Can the PAP reconcile itself to the fact that Singaporeans are less enamoured today with a one-party dominant system, having internalised that good governance cannot be about all our eggs in one political basket?
The question is not whether Singapore will see more political plurality, but when that will come about. The PAP can opt to be the responsible steward of that development or it can have change forced upon it.
The other reality the PAP must live with is that while it holds 80 out of 87 (or 92 per cent) of the elected parliamentary seats, voters will continue to practise double standards in which the ruling party is held to a higher standard than the Opposition. This comes with being the only political party that has governed Singapore since 1959.
The PAP’s dominance was its strength in the halcyon days of nation-building; in the next stage of our development, dominance will have to be more nuanced. The PAP has its work cut out for it.
Eugene KB Tan is assistant professor of law at the Singapore Management University School of Law. He is also a Nominated Member of Parliament. This is part of a series that looks at what’s next after the Punggol East by-election.
Why Workers' Party is talking down its victory
By Kor Kian Beng, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
TO MANY supporters of the Workers' Party (WP), its performance in the Punggol East by-election was a result beyond their wildest expectations.
Its candidate Lee Li Lian, 34, a trainer in the financial industry, won the single-seat ward with 54.5 per cent of the vote and a convincing margin over her main opponent, the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) rookie Koh Poh Koon.
Yet at the post-result press conference last Saturday, WP chief Low Thia Khiang had a sombre expression. The only substantive answer he gave during the 20-minute press conference was even more intriguing.
Instead of expressing joy over the big win or rubbing salt into the PAP's wounds when asked about the by-election's significance to the WP's future growth, Mr Low replied that the party would assist "whenever we can" alongside the Government in improving policies and Singaporeans' lives.
Clearly, there is something about the by-election outcome that has startled the WP chief, and he has good reasons to be.
First, are Punggol East voters putting a lot of hope in the WP?
Party leaders and insiders told The Straits Times that they were surprised by the polling outcome as they thought they would at most win by a slim margin, instead of the eventual 10.8 percentage point margin over Dr Koh.
Even Mr Low himself admitted as much to reporters at the press conference, saying: "We did not expect such a good result."
If even the WP - known for its indefatigable legwork and close reading of the ground during elections - did not foresee such an outcome, which was also beyond the predictions of many others, one is tempted to ask whether this was as close as possible to a freak election result that Singaporeans should be concerned about.
Of course, voters cast ballots based on a myriad of reasons, ranging from their belief in a political party's cause to their preference in a particular candidate, and to their trust in the candidate's ability to improve their lives either on the local or national level.
But this time round, one of the key factors cited for the WP's big win in Punggol East is the lingering dissatisfaction among Singaporeans towards the PAP over bread-and-butter issues like the cost of living and immigration.
In short, it would appear that the WP has benefited from a protest vote against the PAP.
What do voters want from the WP in return though? To be a check, a stronger and firmer voice against the issues that matter to them.
But these protest voters likely backed the WP as they see it as the next-best thing around, even though the opposition party has been criticised for not living up to expectations over its performance in Parliament since the 2011 General Election.
Mr Low must in his heart know that such support can be ephemeral in nature and could vanish any time, when the WP fails to live up to expectations or if the PAP delivers, or changes so radically.
Second, the polls outcome has burnished the WP's image of a party on the rise with higher chances of winning at future polls.
But such hopes could trigger higher expectations of the WP and invite more criticism too, if it fails to meet them. This possible scenario explains why, during a thank-you parade on Sunday morning, Mr Low tried hard to moderate expectations by saying the by-election result was not indicative of trends at future polls.
Third, the WP's internal dynamics and current state of unity could also come under challenge as its latest win would surely attract more potential candidates.
But unlike existing WP members who had joined Mr Low early in his efforts to transform the WP into a political force today, those who join later are more likely to be lured by the rising prospects of success and the allure of being associated with a winning side.
As it is, some former candidates are murmuring over whether they would get to contest future elections given the influx of new faces since 2011.
Mr Low is thus a man burdened by a mountain of expectations that he knows his party may not yet be able to deliver.
Amid these concerns, what is the WP to do?
First, of course, is Mr Low's attempt to temper and talk down what the WP can deliver.
Second, the party has to be more strategic and careful with the wards it chooses to contest next. If the WP is not ready to form the next government as of now, it is unlikely to be able to do so by 2016.
But given the current state of voter sentiment towards the PAP, and all things being equal, the last thing the WP wants is to accidentally trigger "freak" election results, which could seriously jeopardise Singapore's stability.
Third, the WP has to do its part in educating its supporters and voters at large so as to foster a more mature and discerning electorate. It means the WP should not just play to the voters' fears of a dominant PAP but also continue to be frank with its own limitations and constraints.
When to do so and how far it should go will be a judgment call, as such rhetoric could lower the party's chances of winning future polls in the short term.
But long-term political stability should be the top priority on Mr Low's mind.
By-election win not sign of trend for GE: Low
Workers' Party chief plays down big vote swing in Punggol East victory
By Leonard Lim, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
EVEN as Punggol East residents woke up yesterday to the start of life in an opposition ward, Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang cautioned against reading too much into last Saturday's by-election result.
The sizeable vote swing from the People's Action Party (PAP) should not be seen as a harbinger of things to come in Singapore's political scene, according to the man whose party has enjoyed growing support since the 2011 polls.
"You can't take the by-election result as one that is going to be the trend in the future," he told reporters before joining his party colleagues on a thank-you parade around Punggol East with MP-elect Lee Li Lian, who won with 54.5 per cent of the vote.
"It is a by-election, it is not a general election."
Mr Low, an MP for Aljunied GRC, said voters were not worried that they may "accidentally throw out" the government of the day even if they vote for the opposition.
Raising the same theme, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said at a community event that by-elections are prone to "big swings". He added that last Saturday's results will not affect the PAP handling of national issues.
The ruling party's by-election handicap was also cited by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong last Saturday after the result was announced.
Yesterday, Mr Low sought to inject a further dose of reality, bringing up a point that he had made throughout the campaign.
His party, he stressed, is not ready to form an alternative government and come up with a full set of policies.
Rather, at this stage of its development, it will point out problems in existing policies and offer policy suggestions.
"I think we have a competent Government... we need to allow time for the Government to work, and I hope, eventually, the policies will take effect on the ground, people's lives will be improved and we have a better Singapore."
He added that while the WP will keep the Government on its toes, "it's also not productive to politicise everything".
The WP's team in Parliament now totals nine, with the addition of Ms Lee after her 10.8 percentage point win over the PAP's Dr Koh Poh Koon. Her victory is the WP's third in as many years, after it captured Aljunied GRC in 2011, and extended its two-decades-long hold on Hougang in a by-election last year.
Observers have attributed the win to lingering unhappiness with national issues such as the rising cost of living, transport woes and stubbornly high housing prices - themes the WP tried to keep front and centre in voters' minds during the hustings.
Yesterday, in a poll of 50 Punggol East residents, such big-picture issues emerged as the top reason they plumped for the WP.
Administrative and procurement officer Catherine Lim, 40, spoke for many when she said: "The cost of living is very high. Many are trying to use the result to send feedback to the Government."
Meanwhile, the soul-searching has begun within the ruling party.
PAP MPs yesterday said that with the rising desire for more opposition and criticism that the ruling party is losing its connection with Singaporeans, re-establishing rapport with voters has become even more crucial ahead of the 2016 General Election.
Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang GRC) said: "This is a reminder we need to hunker down, and work as hard as we can to get things right. As a party committed to Singapore, we have to make decisions for the long-term future of the country, but ensure we do whatever we can to help the most vulnerable.
"Hard work, common touch, gentle heart - we cannot not have more of those for the years ahead."
Give Govt time to work on policies: WP chief
By Robin Chan, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
THE Government is competent and needs time to turn its policies around, said Workers' Party (WP) chief Low Thia Khiang yesterday, after masterminding a decisive victory over the ruling party in the Punggol East by-election.
He pledged not to "politicise everything", even though the opposition party will check and keep the authorities on their toes.
"We need to allow time for the Government to work... and I think it's only responsible for the Workers' Party to try to work with the Government and hope that things will improve and change," he said, after WP candidate Lee Li Lian's larger-than-expected 54.5 per cent victory.
He hopes the People's Action Party (PAP) will reciprocate.
"Hopefully the PAP will see the same thing and not... spend time to fix Workers' Party. I think it's unproductive," he said, making a reference to a comment by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in the 2006 General Election campaign that if there were "10, 15 or 20 opposition members", he would have to spend his time thinking of a way to "fix them".
Despite the victory and additional parliamentary voice, he said the message to voters has been "very clear" that the WP is not yet ready to form an alternative government.
"I will honestly tell people that we are not there yet. Yes, we can do more, we can do better, but we have limited resources," he said in response to a question on managing rising expectations.
Rather, the WP will point out problems in policies and offer suggestions, such as for alleviating the cost-of-living pressures.
"We... will play our role, entrusted by the people, to make sure that the Government does its work," he said, before the party's six MPs and new MP-elect set off on a four-hour thank-you parade across the north-east ward.
They stood on top of a truck and were followed by a convoy of nearly 10 cars, which snaked through the roads and blocks they had walked over the campaign.
They were greeted by cheers, waves and, even on one occasion, the gesture of a slap, in reference to the "Punggol East slap" the WP had urged voters to give the PAP.
The supporters were not just Punggol East residents, but also followers from neighbouring Hougang and even as far as Jurong, decked out in the light blue party colours and brandishing flags.
One of them was Madam Alice Chin, 50, a Punggol East resident who had voted for the WP. "I feel that they have the people in their hearts."
Key trends on the ground
THE Government and commentators have overstated the "by-election effect" on the People's Action Party's stunning defeat in Punggol East ("PAP leaders expected contest to be difficult"; Sunday). While there is some truth to the view that voters were choosing an MP and not the Government, it would be wrong for the ruling party to ignore some key emerging trends on the ground.
First, the opposition parties, especially the Workers' Party, are able to attract more qualified candidates who can go head to head with many PAP MPs. A few of these candidates appear to have ministerial potential as well.
Second, more Singaporeans are willing to explore alternative socio-political-economic agendas.
Third, opposition party activists and supporters appear hungrier and more vociferous in pursuing their various causes, compared to backers of the ruling party. They have a bigger point to make, and less to lose.
Lastly, the tide has been turning for the WP, and it has achieved some more "firsts", including busting the myth that a three- or four-cornered fight would hand victory to the incumbent.
All these, on top of the local issues in Punggol East, proved too much for the PAP to overcome.
There is no shame in the party's loss in the context of Singapore's changing political dynamics. And there is certainly no loss of face for the party to express disappointment in defeat.
The WP has now won large swathes of support in north-east Singapore.
This is a wake-up call for the Government to rise to the WP's challenge and, more importantly, take the shifting sentiments on the ground seriously.
I welcome WP chief Low Thia Khiang's statement that his party is willing to help and cooperate with the PAP to move Singapore forward.
Its leadership has stated repeatedly in the past that the WP is not ready to form the government.
But as we know, in life, and especially in politics, the lines between words and deeds can often be blurred in the pursuit of power.
Singapore will be finished if parliamentarians on both sides of the fence become "yes-men" to the electorate and indulge in populist politicking to win votes.
A tiny city-state with no natural resources or huge geo-strategic buffers can ill afford to take this dangerous path that continues to paralyse many so-called democracies such as the United States.
Democracy can work only if there is responsible citizenship on the part of all - the Government, the opposition, the media and, above all, the people.
Toh Cheng Seong
ST Forum, 29 Jan 2013
It's the politics that PAP must work on to win support
By Chua Mui Hoong, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
IT'S soul-searching time for the People's Action Party (PAP) after last Saturday's loss to the Workers' Party (WP) in the Punggol East by-election, by a larger margin than most expected.
WP's Lee Li Lian improved on her previous showing of 41 per cent, getting 54.5 per cent of the votes. Her opponent, Dr Koh Poh Koon who was defending the PAP seat, got 43.7 per cent, down from predecessor Michael Palmer's 54.5 per cent just 21 months ago in the May 2011 General Election.
For the PAP, the key issue to grapple with is how to win elections in future. For this campaign, it had discarded old tools: it had party leaders out campaigning, but no negative word was said about the WP candidate or to voters, and none of the knuckle-duster tactics from the past.
It tried a relatively new approach: timing the announcement of billion-dollar improvements to transport, health care and parenthood incentives during the campaign.
The result of this play-nice, subtle campaign? A 10.8 percentage point vote swing against it, which is lower than the average swing of 15.3 percentage points when seats were won by the opposition in past elections.
Of course, Punggol East was a by-election, not a general election. But the PAP would do well to take its result seriously.
For one thing, the demographic profile of Punggol East voters in Sengkang town reflects the future: young, middle class, who believe having an opposition serves their interests.
By General Election 2016, more new towns will rise, as the Housing Board is ramping up supply of Build-to-Order flats in new estates. Many young families will move into new estates in far-flung areas, including Sengkang and Punggol, in the northeastern part of Singapore which the WP wants awash in its party blue.
The same issues of poor public transport links and lack of amenities like childcare centres, wet markets and coffee shops, may crop up there. The ground may be ripe for the WP's picking.
Two, while Punggol East is a by-election, the WP can in fact engineer a by-election effect in General Election 2016 quite easily: by contesting a minority of seats.
Singapore voters are discriminating of opposition candidates. They sent a very clear message by rejecting the Reform Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance, which together got a dismal 1.8 per cent of votes. The Singapore Democratic Party and National Solidarity Party may get double-digit percentage of votes, but did not come close to grabbing a seat in the last few elections.
So long as the WP does not contest over 50 per cent of seats, voters may calculate that the PAP stands a good chance of forming the government, and may then be willing to plump for the WP wherever it contests. General Election 2016 will then be like a by-election, magnified.
Rather than console itself that the Punggol East result reflected the by-election effect, the PAP needs to do some honest self-scrutiny on why its most sincere efforts to be more responsive to citizens' needs has not been enough. Instead, the two by-elections since General Election 2011 have eroded the PAP's vote share.
Fair-minded Singaporeans can see that the PAP is working hard to solve the overcrowding problem caused by too-rapid immigration, by building more rail networks and homes.
It is widening the social safety net to help middle-income families take care of their aged sick and children. It wants to reduce stress in the education system. It has even started a national conversation.
It tries so hard. And still its vote share trends down.
So what can it do about this?
The PAP is changing its policies, and its heavy-handed way of engaging in partisan battles. But it can do more with the politics, especially in the way it relates to people.
As a governing party, some still perceive it as aloof and arrogant. WP chief Low Thia Khiang's caustic analysis of a PAP that had lost its way to become a money-minded machine struck a chord at rallies, winning cheers.
Indeed, its self-cultivated aura of superiority looks unconvincing when several of the Government's top administrators and no less than the Speaker are caught with their pants down - literally.
Singaporeans may in fact prefer a MP they can connect with to someone they are supposed to look up to, who may then prove to have feet of clay. After all, Punggol East voters chose Ms Lee, who struggled through the N levels, polytechnic and university to make a career in training, over Dr Koh, a surgeon.
Politics is about the art of relating to people. For a political party, it is about how party leaders, MPs, activists, the government in power, relate to people. In this respect, the PAP has much to undo.
It won the hearts and minds of previous generations of Singaporeans with its political fervour, and then its clean, efficient administration that brought prosperity.
But in the last 20 years, it has not kept pace enough with a changing electorate. More educated voters were less inclined to back its policy proposals unquestioningly, and less tolerant of what they see as unfair tactics to win support, like tying votes to HDB upgrading, or its bullying of opponents.
And so the important process of bonding with a new generation born in the 1960s and 1970s, has been stymied. Today, this middle-aged group with children, assets and stakes in Singapore, who should be the stalwarts of the political establishment and solid PAP voters, are lukewarm towards the party at best, and angrily critical in many cases.
Meanwhile, a new generation of 20-somethings is growing up, whose mental model is entirely global, who compare Singapore not to the spartan 1960s and 1970s to give thanks for what it is today, but compare it unfavourably to the free-wheeling, glittering cities they visit.
I say all these not to pillory the PAP when it is down. For those - and I believe it remains the majority - who want the PAP to remain in government, it has been sad to see the slow, steady erosion of political support and trust over the years.
The going will be very tough for the PAP now that voters have whet their appetite for more opposition. But unless it is prepared to face up to voters' unhappiness, the PAP risks repeating its mistakes in failing to connect with the electorate. That would be a disaster, not just for itself, but ultimately for Singapore.
Defeat spurs soul-searching in PAP
Party insiders look at reasons for loss, and why they failed to see it coming
By Rachel Chang And Leonard Lim, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
A DAY after their defeat in Punggol East, the People's Action Party (PAP) camp is looking for answers.
Party insiders admitted yesterday the margin of the Workers' Party (WP) win - 10.8 percentage points - took them by surprise.
The unexpected defeat triggered much soul-searching among party insiders - not just on the reasons for the loss, but also on why they had failed to see it coming.
The final count of last Saturday's votes showed the PAP candidate, Dr Koh Poh Koon, had lost in every single one of the 10 polling stations. The swing against the ruling party was broad-based.
PAP leaders have largely attributed the loss to the by-election effect, which makes residents more willing to vote in an opposition MP as a PAP Government is in place. But yesterday, several MPs and activists said lingering dissatisfaction over national issues such as housing prices and public transport also played a big role. The rising cost of living appeared to weigh on voters' minds as well.
Still, the PAP had started out fairly confident, said sources.
The first reason was the traditional political wisdom that a multi-cornered fight benefits the incumbent. The PAP camp, said sources, expected the Singapore Democratic Alliance and the Reform Party to take 5 to 10 per cent of the vote from the WP. In the end, they collectively polled less than 2 per cent.
The PAP camp also believed that former speaker Michael Palmer's resignation over an extra-marital affair would not greatly harm their level of support. Similar circumstances had triggered the Hougang by-election and not hurt the WP, they reasoned.
But branch chairman Victor Lye of Bedok Reservoir-Punggol in Aljunied GRC said the local team of activists often suffers from a "hopeful bias", as was the case in Aljunied in 2011. "When we are the ones in it, we are always optimistic," he said.
This, said sources, contributed to an overly positive interpretation of ground intelligence. For example, on the night of the WP's final rally in Punggol East last Wednesday, the PAP camp sent out 400 activists to blanket the blocks around the rally site, and were told to report back on residents' reception.
"Everyone said that the people they met were very supportive," said one MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
"But of course only the PAP supporters were at home, the rest were at the rally."
The campaign was headed by Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Chan Chun Sing, and caretaker MP and Minister of State Teo Ser Luck. They took pains to avoid the missteps of other close contests.
They kept the campaign local and the spotlight on Dr Koh.
In past losses like Aljunied GRC in 2011 and Hougang last May, PAP "big guns" were perceived to have hurt the candidates by making statements that angered some voters.
As the campaign wore on, the party brass were anxious to stump for Dr Koh and show that the PAP was fully behind the candidate.
But when they showed up on the trail in the second half of the nine-day campaign, it dovetailed neatly with the WP's message that the presence of opposition makes the PAP work harder, lamented one MP.
The three men at the helm of the PAP's campaign in Punggol East were also relatively inexperienced, noted insiders.
Both Mr Chan and Mr Teo are relatively untested electorally: The former entered politics in a walkover in Tanjong Pagar in 2011, while the latter went through two easy contests against opposition minnows in Pasir Ris-Punggol.
Dr Koh himself was a political greenhorn. As a top surgeon and beneficiary of the meritocratic system, he was a perfect candidate in the party leadership's eyes. But voters seemed to connect better with the WP's Ms Lee Li Lian because she came off as "one of them", said one activist.
PAP MP Zaqy Mohamad said: "You can be a high-flier, but who you need in this day is someone who can connect with the ground."
Despite these factors, MPs said yesterday they thought the local campaign had been "smooth, targeted and solid" overall. But sentiment on the ground over national issues was against the PAP.
No regrets about wading into tough battle: Koh
By Goh Chin Lian, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
FRIENDS who tried to talk him out of standing on the People's Action Party (PAP) ticket because they feared he would lose have been proven right, but Dr Koh Poh Koon said yesterday that he has no regrets about wading into the battle in Punggol East.
The 40-year-old told The Straits Times: "I knew it would be tough but I still walked into it anyway because I believe in the cause... I believe that it's important to have change from within."
His stance remains unchanged, he added, and that is to try his best with "a clear conscience".
The colorectal surgeon had said no at first when Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong asked him to stand as the PAP's candidate in the Punggol East by-election, but he changed his mind because he felt that to walk away would be to turn his back on society.
He was introduced as the PAP candidate on Jan10, two days after the Writ of Election was issued, and had two weeks to work the ground.
In the four-cornered race, the political greenhorn took 43.7 per cent of the votes against Workers' Party candidate Lee Li Lian's 54.5 per cent.
"For a rookie, having been on the ground for two weeks, it wasn't too bad," he told reporters yesterday, when asked for his take on the results.
He also praised his activists and volunteers, saying they were a strong, local team who had done their best. One lesson he learnt: "The important thing is to have a good strong team and to continue to be sincere with residents."
His immediate task is to ensure that after this loss, the activists and volunteers have a clear sense of direction as they continue to serve Punggol East residents, he said.
When asked about his political future and whether he would continue to work in Punggol East, he said: "Obviously, after this, we need to sit down and look at the results and think deeper. So I will await for what the PM has decided before seeing where else I can contribute."
Shortly after the poll results were announced last Saturday night, Mr Lee said that he intended to field Dr Koh in future elections.
Yesterday morning, the PAP team, including Minister of State (Trade and Industry) Teo Ser Luck, toured the ward in an open-top bus, waving to supporters and thanking them.
At one point, they ran into the WP's thank-you procession and applauded the newly elected MP.
Asked later how he felt as he saw people waving back, Dr Koh said in Mandarin: "Of course, I feel a bit disappointed that I will not be able to implement the more concrete plans and fulfil the promises that I had for them.
"The residents have made their choice. I hope their MP can make a better contribution."
I’ll be back for GE, vows Desmond Lim
TODAY, 27 Jan 2013
The Singapore Democratic Alliance’s (SDA) candidate in the Punggol East by-election, Mr Desmond Lim Bak Chuan, said yesterday he would be back to contest the next General Election (GE), even after he performed worse than his previous showing and lost his election deposit for the second straight time.
Mr Lim, 45, garnered only 168 votes, or 0.5 per cent of the vote, forfeiting his S$14,500 deposit.
When he contested in Punggol East during the 2011 General Election, Mr Lim received 1,387 votes, or 4.45 per cent of the vote.
Mr Lim was the only candidate who did not hold a rally onsite, choosing instead to carry out a series of online rallies.
Speaking to reporters below his Pasir Ris condo after conceding defeat last night, Mr Lim said: “As you know, I’m not a fly-by-night politician, and I’m not a person who will run away from defeat.”
He added: “I’ve already done my best. It’s been a fast but hard-ending race and I will say that I expected the risk and challenges before I entered this contest. However, it was important for SDA to contest to keep the political flame alive.
“We will work harder, fight harder for the next coming GE, and I would like to thank the Punggol East residents nonetheless.”
Mr Lim contested under the SDA banner in the Jalan Besar Group Representation Constituency (GRC) in 2001, when his team garnered 25.5 per cent of valid votes; and in the Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC in 2006, where the team secured 31.3 per cent of the vote.
After polls closed at 8pm yesterday, Mr Lim headed to North Vista Secondary School, one of two counting centres. He left briefly for Rivervale Primary School, the second counting centre, before he returned to North Vista at around 9.45pm.
Mr Lim left Punggol East for his home a short while later, requesting for privacy to be with his family.
Speaking to reporters, he recounted meeting an 85-year-old resident who suffered from a cataract during the nine-day campaign period.
“I promised him, whether I win or lose, that I will help him raise medical funds,” Mr Lim said.
He went on to say that he has “contacted a foundation” as well as “highlighted it” to Dr Koh Poh Koon, the People’s Action Party candidate, when they met yesterday morning.
“Dr Koh, (with) his network, was also keen to look into it. However, I also appeal to the elected MP to join in this movement to help this resident to recover his eyesight,” Mr Lim said.
Four-cornered fight a blessing in disguise for WP
By Eugene KB Tan, Published TODAY, 27 Jan 2013
It is a famous victory for the Workers’ Party (WP) and its candidate Lee Li Lian, and confirms the WP’s growing standing and stature not only as Singapore’s leading Opposition party but also its dominance of Opposition politics. It will catalyse Singapore’s rapidly changing political landscape, moving resolutely away from a “new normal” to a “more normal” state of affairs.
Despite a crowded race with four candidates, which included the Secretary-Generals of the Reform Party and the Singapore Democratic Alliance and a potential office holder in Dr Koh Poh Koon of the People’s Action Party (PAP), the WP stamped its class, authority and power.
What accounts for the WP’s stunning win, given that the by-election was one for the PAP to lose? Punggol East was not a secure seat for the PAP.
In the General Election (GE) in 2011, Punggol East was ranked a lowly ninth out of 12 in terms of victory margin for the PAP, only ahead of the marginal seats of Potong Pasir and Joo Chiat, and Hougang, where it had not won since 1991.
For the WP, the by-election effect worked its magic this time — voters felt that they had nothing much to lose by throwing their support behind a strong, credible alternative given that the outcome of this by-election will not affect the PAP’s control of the Government.
There was the added seductive charm of tactical voting that the WP advertised for: That Punggol East will have the best of both worlds with a WP Member of Parliament (MP) and a PAP grassroots adviser working for them in Punggol East.
Further, unsettled ground sentiments over hot-button issues such as housing prices, transport woes, immigration, cost of living and the income divide meant that the addition of another WP MP could press the PAP Government to do more and even faster in order to stanch declining popular support for the ruling party.
Another key reason for the WP’s success was its ability to get swing voters on its side, and to have voters who wanted an Opposition MP to cast their ballots in favour of the WP.
This enabled the WP to gain a massive swing of votes from 41 per cent in GE 2011 to 54.5 per cent yesterday — all in a mere 20 months.
The WP’s margin of victory meant that it also won over many voters who had voted for the PAP in May 2011.
That the by-election was a four-cornered contest was a blessing in disguise for the WP. It resolutely concentrated voters, particularly those who wanted to vote for the Opposition.
The WP’s cachet meant that such voters decided to pool their support behind Ms Lee.
So it is no surprise that Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam and Mr Desmond Lim lost their electoral deposits and incurred significant damage to their political reputations.
With this victory, the WP will be able to catalyse its plans to be an even bigger player in the next GE.
It will boost the WP’s recruitment and fund-raising efforts. They are well-positioned to make further inroads in the next GE, although they will have to manage the other Opposition parties which are naturally concerned about being overwhelmed by the WP juggernaut.
We can also expect the PAP to respond robustly, but it will have lots of soul searching to do in the meantime.
Related
↧
Maid agency hiring male caregivers
Helpers from Myanmar to arrive by end-February, to look after old men
By Amelia Tan, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
A MAID agency is planning to bring in a batch of about 30 male domestic workers trained in caregiving from Myanmar by the end of next month.
Homekeeper, one of the largest players in Singapore, says there is a strong demand for male helpers to take care of elderly men whom the more petite maids may have difficulty handling.
The agency is also ramping up recruitment to bring in about 60 male domestic workers from Myanmar in June, and more after that if demand is good.
This is the first time an agency is bringing in male foreign domestic workers on a regular basis.
Only a handful have hired men on an ad hoc basis at their customers' request in the past two years.
Agencies estimate there are fewer than 20 male foreign domestic workers in Singapore. Most of them are Filipinos who have been hired to care for elderly men. In contrast, there are 208,400 foreign maids.
Agents say the Manpower Ministry allows employers to bring in foreign male domestic workers if they have strong reasons for doing so.
Homekeeper managing director Carene Chin said many of her customers point out that their maids struggle to carry their wheelchair-bound or bed- ridden fathers.
The employers also find it is less awkward for their fathers if their caregiver is a man.
She added: "They feel that their father will be more comfortable to have a man to help them with showering and changing their clothes."
Ms Chin said hiring foreign domestic workers equipped with caregiving skills will allow more Singapore employers to avoid sending their parents to nursing homes, which are facing a shortage of places.
She said Singaporean employers like maids from Myanmar for their patient and hardworking nature. She believes that male workers from Myanmar will have a similar temperament.
Homekeeper is also sourcing women from the same country to be trained as caregivers. The agency will bring in about 60 of them by next month.
Both the male and female workers will be trained as caregivers in Yangon. They will be paid about $500 a month, higher than the average of $450 which foreign domestic workers earn in Singapore.
Most of them are high school or university graduates. But those who are trained nurses will be paid about $800.
Homekeeper has struck a deal with Singapore training course provider Grace Management and Consultancy Services (GMCS), as well as Yangon private school ACM School, to put all the workers through a 45-day caregiver course.
Conducted on ACM's premises in Yangon, the sessions will equip the workers with knowledge on dealing with the elderly and spotting health problems such as diabetes and high blood pressure.
They will be taught in hands- on segments and classroom lectures, and will also learn conversational English and Mandarin.
GMCS managing director Richard Khoo said a team of its Myanmar doctors, nurses and trainers will conduct the classes and ensure the course is up to the mark.
GMCS runs the compulsory one-day Settling-In-Programme in Singapore which teaches first-time maids how to work safely and adjust to life here.
Employers with elderly parents said they are interested in hiring male caregivers. Shipping company director Serene Tan, 41, said her Filipino maid has trouble shifting her 82-year-old bedridden father-in-law to prevent him from getting bedsores.
"Hiring a trained caregiver will also free my maid up to concentrate on doing household chores."
Stronger pair of helping hands
By Amelia Tan, The Straits Times, 28 Jan 2013
MADAM Fatimah Ismail, 42, was troubled when she saw black and blue bruises on the arms of the female Filipino caregiver she had hired to take care of her bed-ridden father.
They came about when her 75-year-old dad gripped his caregiver's arms instinctively as he was afraid of falling when he was moved from his bed onto a wheelchair. The caregiver also had trouble lifting the 1.8m-tall man from his bed due to his bulky stature.
Madam Fatimah, a bank officer, started thinking that a male caregiver would be better suited for the job and began sourcing for one.
Three months ago, she hired a 24-year-old male helper from the Philippines through recruitment agency Aseana HR Consultants. The trained nurse is paid about $800 a month - almost twice the $450 that foreign domestic workers earn in Singapore.
Madam Fatimah says she is happy with her choice as the caregiver does not have any problems lifting her dad. She is also comfortable with having a male worker in her home and gives him his own room.
Agents who bring in male foreign domestic workers say there is a big demand for them.
Like maids, these male helpers come to Singapore on foreign domestic worker work permits, which are valid for two years, and live with their employers.
Bosses who hire male helpers and have family members above the age of 65 get to pay a discounted monthly levy of $170. The full monthly levy is $265. Aseana HR Consultants managing director Thess Lagdameo, who has brought in four male caregivers in the last six months, says some employers prefer male helpers but decide to hire maids instead because of the relatively shorter waiting time.
Agents say it takes three to five weeks for employers to be informed by the Manpower Ministry if the work permit application for their male helper is successful. Work permits for maids are usually approved within a few days.
Some employers interviewed said, however, that they are un-comfortable with hiring a male caregiver. Mr H.H. Yeo hires a Filipino maid who is a trained nurse to care for his elderly mother. He said: "My mum lives alone with the caregiver. She will not be comfortable with an unfamiliar man in the house."
↧
Revisiting co-payments
By Jeremy Lin, Published TODAY, 28 Jan 2013
Co-payments are sacrosanct in Singapore healthcare. Since the debut of co-payments in government polyclinics in 1960, the application of co-payment has been extended to virtually all healthcare services.
Why co-payments? The economic literature is rich with insights on the utility of co-payments and there are very good reasons for co-payments, but not in every healthcare setting and definitely not as an unthinking blanket policy.
In the Singapore setting, the most important objectives are probably mitigating moral hazard and optimising limited government monies. Let us examine them and explore whether and how co-payments can be re-looked.
UPSIDES AND DOWNSIDES
Moral hazard is the phenomenon where patients consume more than they should because someone else is paying. The 1993 White Paper on Affordable Health Care states emphatically: “To avoid the pitfall of ‘free’ medical services stimulating insatiable demand, patients pay directly for part of the cost of medical services which they use.”
As for targeting scarce subsidies, even the richest governments have finite resources, and Singapore is no different. Imposing co-payments enables some degree of cost recovery.
This is the reverse of many developed countries, which, while critics decry as economically regressive, likely in no small measure contributes to the Singapore Government’s healthy finances — especially when contrasted with many European countries struggling to meet pension and other public service obligations.
Are there downsides to co-payments? Ultimately, co-payments are a tool, a means to an end. The “end” here would be appropriate, financially responsible health service utilisation.
Co-payments should dissuade over-consumption, burdening of the state and extending waiting times for everyone else, but should not discourage medically necessary care and definitely not cause patients to fall into the crevice of medical bankruptcy.
Easier said than done. Co-payment application must evolve as society evolves and as policy makers understand better behavioural sciences and their applications in public policy.
POUND FOOLISH?
One way to conceptualise health services is to categorise them in five areas: Preventive care, acute ambulatory care, hospital services, long-term care and palliative care. Are co-payments as a policy instrument equally relevant in all five areas?
In acute care and hospital services where patients are in pain, co-payments make sense for the reasons cited above, and genuine patients generally would not defer care for financial reasons.
Co-payments also help to discourage over-consulting which can be seen in comprehensive insurance schemes. In countries with very low co-payments, physician consultations per citizen are significantly higher than in countries with higher user fees.
In preventive services such as cancer screening and regular diabetic follow-ups, co-payments are less useful and perhaps even detrimental. Citizens are already reluctant to seek healthcare due to the “silent” nature of their conditions and in screening, we are trying to motivate perfectly asymptomatic people to subject themselves to uncomfortable measures such as mammograms and Pap smears.
In Singapore, only 40 per cent of women undergo regular mammograms, a far cry from the 70 to 80 per cent needed for effective national screening. Co-payments are arguably not needed here as the inherent behaviour is already avoidance, and the financial outlay just adds one more “reason” to defer care.
Is it then to conserve subsidies? That would be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Screenings and good control of chronic conditions are meant respectively to detect disease early and prevent complications, which save individuals and society money in the long term.
What about long-term care? Poorly utilised and delivered long-term care services simply drive patients into hospitals with complications such as bed sores and lung infections. Again, blunt imposition of co-payments is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Some degree of co-payments is useful to reinforce responsible service utilisation and appreciation of the true costs of services, but co-payments cannot be so high as to deter appropriate care and encourage cutting corners.
END-OF-LIFE CARE
Finally, let us look at palliative care. Often patients would have spent much of their life savings by the time they reach this stage, and co-payments may impede acceptance of such services.
In palliative care which emphasises so much holistic care and dignity, conserving subsidies through an intrusive means test involving siblings and children and detailed inspection of family incomes is simply bad practice.
As for moral hazard, can a dying man over-consume palliative care services? St Christopher’s Hospice in England, the birthplace of modern palliative care, has not imposed co-payments. Why not? Surely it would make the service more efficient and help the staff spend less time fundraising?
Founder Dame Cicely Saunders, spiritual leader of the palliative care world until her death in 2005, said: “You matter because you are you, and you matter to the end of your life. We will do all we can not only to help you die peacefully, but also to live until you die.”
Co-payments in healthcare are a powerful policy tool. Applied appropriately, they drive economic and operational efficiency, enabling services to function well with reduced wastage and over-consumption. Applied blindly as a matter of ideology, they can be ruinous to the humane functioning of our healthcare system.
Dr Jeremy Lim has held senior executive positions in both public and private healthcare sectors. He is currently writing a book on the Singapore health system. This is the third in a series on health policies in Singapore.
↧
↧
Childcare subsidies: Larger families can get more help
WE AGREE with Mr Alan Ong ("More benefit with multi-tier approach"; last Friday) and Madam Chen Shi Ning ("Consider number of kids, not just household income"; last Friday) that larger families with more dependants may need more help with the costs of infant and child care.
Larger families may wish to have their subsidies assessed on a per capita income basis.
Those with incomes exceeding $7,500 may still qualify for the additional subsidy if their per capita income is $1,875 or less.
More information on the subsidy amounts based on per capita income can be found on our website at www.childcarelink.gov.sg
Madam Chen also asked how a change in income might affect eligibility for the additional subsidy.
We will re-assess household incomes every two years to minimise the disruption to families from frequent changes to subsidy amounts due to changes in income.
Those families that wish to have their subsidy amounts reviewed can apply to have their incomes re-assessed at any time.
Musa Fazal
Director, Child Care Division
Ministry of Social and Family Development
ST Forum, 29 Jan 2013
Director, Child Care Division
Ministry of Social and Family Development
ST Forum, 29 Jan 2013
More benefit with multi-tier approach
WHILE government efforts to address childcare costs are commendable, I am disappointed that the benchmark of $7,500 monthly household income has been used as an eligibility criterion ("New childcare subsidies will slash costs for families"; yesterday).
A household with three or four children, with a monthly income of $10,000, may not be better off than one with a single child and a monthly income of $7,000.
The Government should consider a multi-tier approach, giving higher subsidies to those below the $7,500 bracket, and lower subsidies to those above it.
Another thing to note is that more couples are getting hitched at an older age.
Their combined incomes are more likely to exceed $7,500 by the time they decide to have children, which means they would not qualify for the additional childcare subsidies.
The rising cost of bringing up children affects everyone, and is probably one of the key considerations affecting a couple's decision to have more babies.
Realistically, childcare costs will keep rising going forward, so if we really want to motivate couples to procreate, we should ensure that no one gets left behind.
Alan Ong
Alan Ong
ST Forum, 25 Jan 2013
Consider number of kids, not just household income
MY HOUSEHOLD has a gross monthly income of $10,000. I have three young children enrolled in full-day childcare programmes.
On top of that, I have to engage a maid to help out so I can continue to work. I also have to take care of my retired parents.
Are my expenses lower than those of a household whose monthly income is below $7,500 but has only one child and no maid?
Dual-income families earning up to $10,000 a month have become increasingly common. So it may be time to revise our definition of a middle-class household.
If a person is jobless at the time the additional childcare subsidies kick in, but finds a job three months later such that his household income rises above the $7,500 ceiling, would he still enjoy the increased subsidies? How often will a household's income be reviewed?
Chen Shi Ning (Madam)
Chen Shi Ning (Madam)
ST Forum, 25 Jan 2013
Related
Enhanced Child and Infant Care Subsidies for Lower and Middle Income Families
Related
Enhanced Child and Infant Care Subsidies for Lower and Middle Income Families
↧
Why Scandinavian model is not ideal
LAST Saturday's articles ("Succeeding in Europe..." and "...Struggling in East Asia") highlighted the achievements in Europe, especially Scandinavian nations, in reversing declining birth rates, and East Asian countries' failure in that respect.
The first article reported on the generous handouts and incentives offered by the Scandinavian countries, such as long maternity and paternity leave. In contrast, the second article reported that handouts and incentives in East Asian countries are much less generous and more restrictive.
They gave an impression that the Scandinavian model works well, and that East Asian countries may have to follow suit to reverse declining birth rates.
We need to look a little deeper into what these Scandinavian nations have achieved. We should not take their birth statistics at face value. We also need to understand the negative impact their model has on their societies.
In his article "The end of marriage in Scandinavia", researcher Stanley Kurtz said "marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty per cent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents".
Dr Kurtz further wrote: "The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead."
The Scandinavians' success in boosting birth rates not only comes with a huge fiscal burden, but also erosion in marriage and family institutions. For the Scandinavian model to work well - achieving close to 1.9 in total fertility rate in some years - acceptance of out-of-wedlock births and same-sex marriages are prerequisites.
Understanding these aspects would give us a better perspective of the direction we should pursue in our own Marriage and Parenthood Package, so that we do not blindly imitate any foreign model or scheme.
Ng Ya Ken
ST Forum, 29 Jan 2013
↧
More jobs vacant for longer time
Four in 10 vacancies unfilled for six months - many in service and sales
By Janice Heng, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
MORE job vacancies are going unfilled for six months or more, as a tight labour market and stricter foreign worker policies take their toll.
According to a report released yesterday by the Ministry of Manpower, the number of positions left untaken for at least six months rose from 18,230 in the year to September 2011, to 20,930 the following year, a 15 per cent increase.
That means four in 10 of all vacancies as of last September were unfilled for at least six months.
There were 56,400 job openings as of last September, up slightly from the year before.
Service and sales staff positions made up the biggest chunk of these vacancies - almost a quarter - and included sales assistants, waiters, security guards and cashiers.
Associate professionals and technicians accounted for another 17 per cent of openings, and professionals, 15 per cent.
Low-skilled jobs are the most likely to be left unfilled for longer periods, as local workers shun tough work and low wages. Of the positions that were not taken for at least six months, some 83 per cent were for workers other than professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs).
Of the long-term unfilled vacancies, a third were for service and sales workers, and another 22 per cent for cleaners, labourers and related workers.
Those were also the two job sectors for which bosses reported the most difficulty in finding locals.
"This is an indication that the move to moderate the inflow of foreign workers is having an impact on the labour market," said Mr Mark Hall, vice-president and country general manager at recruitment consultancy Kelly Services Singapore.
As the Government tightens the tap on foreign worker inflows, such as with tougher quotas and higher levies, companies have had to turn increasingly to local workers.
But bosses said they had trouble hiring Singaporeans for two-thirds of all openings. Especially problematic was "attracting locals to take up lower-skilled jobs", said the report.
Employers found more than nine in 10 vacancies for cleaners, labourers and related workers hard to fill with local staff. It was the same for almost nine in 10 service and sales openings.
In contrast, fewer than four in 10 PMET positions presented such a problem.
Evergreen Refuse Disposal and Cleaning Services, for instance, has been looking for cleaners for "the past few years".
"It's quite common for cleaning companies," said its administrative manager Esther Kow. The company puts out recruitment advertisements several times a week, she added.
The most common reasons given for the difficulty in hiring locals were those associated with low-skilled jobs: unattractive pay, physically strenuous tasks, a poor working environment and shift work.
Credit Suisse economist Michael Wan said the vacancies show a "structural mismatch" between demand for low-skilled workers and an increasingly educated workforce.
For more than 54 per cent of all job vacancies, only secondary or lower education was required.
Workers without higher qualifications than these form four in 10 of Singapore's resident labour force.
OCBC Bank economist Selena Ling said that given the tight foreign manpower constraints, the "growing aspirations" of Singaporean workers may "hurt the ability of employers to fill certain types of jobs like cleaners and labourers proportionately more".
But she did not think the economy faces a major structural mismatch, saying that overall unemployment - 1.9 per cent last September - was still extremely low.
↧
S'pore draws record $16b in investments
They could create 18,600 skilled jobs, add $20.3b a year in economic value
By Aaron Low, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
SINGAPORE attracted a record amount of investments last year, a sign that it is holding its own in an increasingly competitive world, said the Economic Development Board (EDB) yesterday.
About $16 billion of fixed asset investments flowed in, 17 per cent up on 2011. These investments should eventually add $20.3 billion in economic value a year to the economy and create 18,600 skilled jobs.
The $16 billion figure is the highest in Singapore's history, apart from the one-off petrochemical-related investment spikes in 2007 and 2008. The EDB discounts those as one-off lump sums.
EDB chairman Leo Yip said: "It was a good year for Singapore."
He added that companies wanting to invest in the fast-growing region and Asia in general were behind the good result.
But he warned that inward investment is likely to decline given Singapore's physical limitations of finite land and manpower.
"There continues to be land for industry to grow," said Mr Yip.
"It is quite clear that we have reached a stage of our economic development where the rate of growth of land going forward cannot be the same as what we had experienced in the past."
The largest contributor to fixed asset investment last year was the chemicals sector, which drew in $6.7 billion.
Electronics was a close second, bringing in $6.2 billion in investments despite it being a difficult year for the sector. Electronics output fell 11.3 per cent last year compared with 2011. Some analysts have attributed this to Singapore having little exposure to the fast-growing mobile devices sector but EDB managing director Yeoh Keat Chuan dismissed this.
He noted that about 30 per cent of the semiconductor sector here builds parts for smartphones and mobile devices, adding that industry leaders such as Qualcomm, Apple and Samsung have significant operations in Singapore.
"While we are plugged into the communications sector, Singapore's electronics industry is diversified," he said.
"But it also means that we are very much plugged into the global electronics sector. Unfortunately in 2012, the global electronics industry was depressed."
CIMB regional economist Song Seng Wun said the figures did show that Singapore remains attractive and competitive.
"It takes a lot for an electronics firm to plonk down hundreds of millions to set up a factory in these difficult times. This probably means Singapore is doing something right."
Singapore remains competitive: EDB
Republic still a compelling choice for firms looking to tap region's growth
By Aaron Low, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
SINGAPORE faces many challenges, including rising costs, strong competition from other centres and a revival of United States manufacturing.
But Economic Development Board (EDB) chairman Leo Yip believes that Singapore still represents a compelling choice for firms looking to tap Asian and South-east Asian growth.
Singapore is one of the world's most competitive economies, often ranked near the top of international competitiveness surveys.
But a combination of rising inflation and tighter manpower policies has started to put pressure on companies here.
A survey by the business consultancy arm of The Economist magazine recently said that Singapore is losing some of its shine among multinational firms.
Speaking at a press briefing to announce last year's investment figures, Mr Yip acknowledged yesterday that many firms are concerned over rising costs and have complained about the difficulty in getting staff for their operations.
But despite the rising costs and manpower issues, Singapore continues to attract firms here because of the total package it offers.
"But in overall terms, the picture we are getting shows that firms continue to find Singapore an attractive location to consider to expand in this part of the world."
He also said that while EDB is aware of the trend for US manufacturing firms to move back to their home base, so far, there has been no indication that Singapore has been affected.
And as for whether firms are concerned over the Republic's new political environment, Mr Yip said that they are keen to learn about the situation.
"They ask, but whether it means they are losing trust in Singapore? No, they continue to trust the country," he said.
OCBC economist Selena Ling said that Singapore remains competitive but it also faces immense challenges from its competitors.
"Global competition remains very keen for foreign investments, so while Singapore currently ranks highly in terms of global competitiveness, any complacency should be avoided," she said.
One company convinced that Singapore is an ideal place to expand its Asia-Pacific operations is data storage firm Nimble Storage.
The US firm wants to move its regional headquarters from Sydney to Singapore in about 18 months.
Asked if Singapore's rising costs were a deterrent, Nimble's vice-president for Asia-Pacific, Mr Peter O'Connor, said: "Sydney isn't a low-cost location either. So in relative terms, it's not that much different."
Singapore too has a much larger pool of IT talent than Sydney, which the firm intends to tap.
"Nimble is a very unique company and we believe that we will be able to attract talent. So we are not too worried about the manpower crunch," he said.
"We see Singapore as an important hub from which we can quickly expand into the rest of Asia."
↧
↧
Singapore Perspectives 2013
PM throws light on what led to infrastructure strain
Mr Perera had asked if Singapore might benefit from having a public hearing or commission look into the lack of coordination between those managing public infrastructure and population size.
We didn't have 20/20 foresight - next time, we will try to do better, he says
By Jeremy Au Yong, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday gave the most comprehensive account to date of the circumstances that ultimately led to the strains on infrastructure in recent years.
He focused on the ups and downs of the global economy and how the Government reacted to it, starting with the downturns triggered by the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States more than a decade ago.
PM Lee was responding to a question from Mr Leon Perera, chief executive of Spire Research and Consulting, at the annual Singapore Perspectives conference of the Institute of Policy Studies.
Mr Perera had asked if Singapore might benefit from having a public hearing or commission look into the lack of coordination between those managing public infrastructure and population size.
"You don't need a commission or an inquiry to find out how it happened, I can tell you how it happened. It happened because we didn't have 20/20 foresight," responded Mr Lee, to laughter from the audience.
He started with the recession of the early 2000s - which began with the terror attacks and was then prolonged by the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) - noting that population growth then was low, home prices were down and large numbers of foreign workers were going home.
The tide changed in 2005 and 2006. And that was when he decided to "try and make up for lost time".
"You want the economy to grow, you want Singapore to make progress and you don't know how long the sun is going to shine," he said. "As it turned out, the sun remained shining for longer than we expected."
The population, including foreigners, thus grew faster than expected and infrastructure lagged behind. The total population grew from 4.2 million in 2005 to 5.3 million last year.
But Mr Lee said he could not start turning away businesses during the period the economy was growing.
"Should we have said... Let's forget about the growth, we don't need the IRs (integrated resorts), we don't need these extra jobs, we just stay where we were? I think that would be very risky.
"Should we have given ourselves more buffer and said, let's build and be ready? I think in retrospect, clearly yes, we could have done more."
Mr Lee stressed continually not just how difficult it was to predict economic changes but also how sudden those changes can be.
He said that when the global financial crisis hit in 2008, the Government braced itself for a deep dive. The economy dipped up to 10 per cent in one quarter and there was no talk of home prices or shortage of HDB flats.
The Government rolled out a slew of measures to try and temper the effects of the crisis.
It tracked the property market closely, but this remained flat until a sudden turnaround in mid-2009.
"Every month it was flat, flat, flat, flat, flat but in June 2009 tremendous blip... In the course of two weeks during one or two private property launches, somehow the wind changed. It's like the spring breeze touches your face. And the market was off," he said.
It was the sudden change of pace that made it difficult to react to, he said. While the economy can change overnight, infrastructure projects take years.
Still, the Government has learnt from the experience, he said.
"Next time, we will try to do better, certainly to have a bigger buffer and not to cut things so fine, but I think it's very difficult to know 10 years from now how many (homes) you will need," said Mr Lee.
"Even if you know how many persons there would be in Singapore, you can't say for sure how many houses there would be. Will they buy it or will they say, no, I'm not certain because the economy is not looking good or because the politics are uncertain and, well, I'll hold off?
"But when the market goes up it goes up with a vengeance and, well, we've paid a political price. We learn from it."
SUDDEN CHANGE
When the market goes up, it goes up with a vengeance and, well, we've paid a political price. We learn from it.
- PM Lee
ON SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS
What we want to avoid is thinking that more money is the solution to our problem because actually you can find the money but the solution to the problem is really more fundamental to that. Low income, a solution is to upgrade your skills so that you have more skills and you can earn better. Old age, part of the solution is people have to stay active longer, in the society longer; therefore, well and healthy longer. And many other broken families, the solution isn't just to be generous with the divorced wife left with her, stranded with her children but to try and strengthen our families so that they stay together and don't get encouraged to split apart.
- PM Lee on the Government's approach to increasing social support
ON FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
The people who have done it have found that far from assuring freedom of information, it will lead to more opaqueness and avoidance of records. If you know that everything you write down is going to be made public, a lot of things are not going to be written down. And if you know that the meeting is going to be minuted, then you're going to have a pee break or coffee break before the meeting.
- PM Lee on why he does not think a freedom of information Act is a good idea
ON ELECTORAL DISTRICTS
In America, it's done by Congress and if you look at the way they carve their constituencies on congressional districts out, it's explicitly carved so that you preserve the vote for specific members... I don't think there's a good solution which can depoliticise the process. I think it's better to leave it as it is... If you look at the last general election, there were a few quibbles here and there but by and large, people acknowledged that this was a fair demarcation, and likewise the one before that.
- PM Lee, when asked about setting up an independent election commission here
'Meritocracy important and Govt will mitigate downsides'
By Elgin Toh, The Straits Tmes, 29 Jan 2013
PRIME Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday affirmed the importance of meritocracy in Singapore, arguing that any downside can and would be mitigated by the Government.
Spelling out how it works, he said all would get a chance to compete fairly, and the best man would get the most difficult job and be rewarded accordingly.
But there must also be consolation prizes for the rest, he said.
"How big a consolation prize, how you define winners and losers - that is something we have to discuss," he said, adding that the definition of winners here has broadened over the years to recognise, for instance, those in arts, social service and sports.
Mr Lee acknowledged meritocracy had its weaknesses - such as a tendency to widen the income gap - but said the Government was working to mitigate these problems in two ways.
One, it was making sure the opportunity to move up remained available to all. He said: "If you make the effort, you can make the next step. You may have gone to N levels. You can work hard, you can make it to O levels, you can get to the polytechnics, you can get to university. Some people go on to do PhDs - not everybody, but the door is open."
Two, the Government would balance income distribution through wage policy.
He said: "Within Singapore, we can say... you're a school teacher, you may not be a top lawyer, but I make sure that you're also paid properly."
But society also had a role to play in changing mindsets.
In the education system, for example, he noted how difficult it was to counter the view among parents that if one's child did not get into a certain course or stream, his future was bleak.
"To persuade parents to accept that their sons or daughters can be happy in different ways, that is something which is not just what the Government says but really social attitudes and social perspectives," he said.
In an earlier session at the Singapore Perspectives Conference, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong pledged that even as Singapore continued to practise meritocracy, it would guard against two negative forms of it.
These include an excessively competitive one in which individuals sought to advance their interests at the expense of others, and one with a "closed group of winners" in which advantages are ascribed by birth.
PM Lee: Good mix needed for PAP team
By Tessa Wong, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
RECLAIMING ground lost to the opposition will require the People's Action Party (PAP) to have a good mix of different candidates, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong yesterday as he sketched the key traits needed in his team.
Answering questions on the PAP's future at a forum, after a sobering weekend when the party lost the Punggol East by-election, he said he was looking for three types of people.
They are those who could "click with the crowd", those with the ideas to get things done and those who represent the different streams in society.
"You need people who can identify and click with the crowd. It's a visceral thing. Do I feel like you? Do I like you? Can I connect with you?" he said, in a rare nod to the importance of candidates' charisma.
Establishing this kind of rapport takes time, but "if you have the right man, I'm sure he can do it", said PM Lee at the annual Singapore Perspectives forum of the Institute of Policy Studies, attended by about 800 professionals and academics.
Citing the PAP candidate for Punggol East, Dr Koh Poh Koon, he said he had no doubt the surgeon would have been able to connect with people face to face.
"Unfortunately, he did not have enough time and so he didn't win in Punggol East," said Mr Lee.
Dr Koh lost to the Workers' Party's candidate Lee Li Lian with a score of 43.7 per cent at last Saturday's by-election. Residents have said their unfamiliarity with Dr Koh was one reason they did not vote for him.
Mr Lee stressed that he also needs people with ideas, "who can say, let's do this together, and can get people to work together to make things happen".
Finding both skills in one person may not be easy, he admitted, which is why he is more focused on making sure his team has the right combination. It should be made up as well of people who represent different profiles in society, from grassroots volunteers and professionals to social activists and unionists.
"If I have the right mix of such people, with the right motives, I can make it. It's not certain but that's the way to maximise our chances," he said.
Mr Lee was upbeat as he candidly answered a wide range of questions, about half of them focused on the country's politics and political systems.
When asked about the sharp disparity between the popular vote and seat share, Mr Lee said that unlike Britain, Singapore's political map is relatively homogeneous, which means that "every seat is a swing seat".
"If there's a swing, it's a nationwide swing and today it can be very lopsided one way, tomorrow it can be very lopsided another way," he said.
Acknowledging that it could cause instability in the long term, he said having Non-Constituency MPs and Nominated MPs helped to mitigate the problem in the short term.
He also said proportional representation may not be right for a multiracial society like Singapore's, as it would encourage race politics.
Ultimately, he said the future of Singapore's politics would not depend on just politicians, but also on how society develops. Said Mr Lee: "If a society is divided, the politics will reflect that."
'Diversity of views' in Cabinet
By Elgin Toh, The Straits Tmes, 29 Jan 2013
THERE is a healthy diversity of views in the Cabinet and the civil service, Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong said yesterday.
"Every time there is a discussion within the Cabinet about policies, you will be surprised at the wide range of options we discuss," he told speakers and participants at a conference who had suggested that the Singapore leadership was in danger of groupthink.
The former civil servant added that the same was true of the civil service. His experience was that "there was lots of space for us to raise ideas", both to the minister and to one another.
Mr Wong was responding to a participant's question at the Singapore Perspectives conference on whether disagreement occurred in the ruling party "in closed sessions".
Earlier, speaker Donald Low, a senior fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, said a system trapped in ideological rigidity was less resilient.
He cited examples of how organisations "institutionalised dissent": Universities like Harvard did not hire their own PhD graduates as professors for three to five years, and the US military set up "red teams" to challenge prevailing wisdoms.
"In the long run, we are better off relying... on a diversity of ideas and competing options than on a system that is critically dependent on a similar group of people, no matter how bright they may be," he said.
Mr Wong, while disagreeing that group think was prevalent, said more discussions could be had earlier and in public to counter the view that real debate was lacking.
He added that sometimes a policy is presented at the final stage and the false impression created is that the Government is close- minded and has not considered alternatives.
Let’s agree to disagree on gay rights: PM Lee
By Tan Weizhen, TODAY, 29 Jan 2013
Reiterating that Singapore society is not likely to come to a conclusion on gay rights, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong signalled yesterday that the status quo will remain — and his position on Section 377A of the Penal Code, which criminalises sex between men, still stands.
Speaking at the Singapore Perspectives conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies, Mr Lee was asked by a participant how the fact that the Republic is a secular country reconciles with “an old and archaic law that nearly discriminates against a whole (group) of people”.
In response, Mr Lee noted that in countries that do not criminalise homosexuality, “the struggles don’t end”. He cited the example of recent demonstrations in Paris by supporters and detractors of gay marriage.
“Why is that law on the books? Because it’s always been there and I think we just leave it,” said Mr Lee, adding that he had explained his decision in 2007 to retain Section 377A.
Mr Lee also brought up the issue of gay rights — which has come under the spotlight again recently — in response to a question from actress Janice Koh, who is also a Nominated Member of Parliament.
Ms Koh asked whether there is space for public discussions on issues that are potentially polarising.
She noted that such discussions could help build a more resilient society.
Citing the example of gay rights, Mr Lee said: “These are not issues that we can settle one way or the other, and it’s really best for us just to leave them be, and just agree to disagree. I think that’s the way Singapore will be for a long time.”
He added that the “conservative roots” in society do not want to see the social landscape change.
Other matters that remain sensitive — although less so these days — are issues of race and religion, Mr Lee said: “We discuss many things openly now, which in the past we would have hesitated to do.
“How our different religions state perspectives and views, how our different races perform in school or how successful they are. But to think that you can take your hands off and just leave it, I think it’s very unwise,” he said.
In response to one of the participants who brought up how Muslim girls are not allowed to wear tudungs in mainstream schools — an issue that grabbed the headlines about a decade ago — Mr Lee said: “You may say it’s external, it’s not important but these small symbols can cause people to ... cluster separately and integrate less.”
He added that Singapore has made progress over the past decade with regards to having mutual respect in a multiracial society — as the participant put it.
Mr Lee said: “But at the same time, religion is a very important aspect of the lives of many Singaporeans — I think more so today than 30 or 40 years ago.”
Singapore's system of meritocracy can be improved: Lawrence Wong
By S. Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia, 28 Jan 2013
Singapore's system of meritocracy can be improved for the benefit of all, as part of the ideals of a fair and just society, said Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Lawrence Wong
He highlighted this as an area that the country can do better in when he spoke at the Singapore Perspectives seminar on Monday morning.
The seminar also heard from opposition politician Sylvia Lim on how the Workers' Party can contribute to politics in the country.
Governing the future together will mean casting new roles and ties between the government and citizens, as well as refreshing the values that Singaporeans cherish.
Mr Wong said while meritocracy ranks top among the values, he stressed that Singapore does not want a system where its people seek to advance individual interests at the expense of others.
Mr Wong said: "We do not want a meritocracy that results in a closed group of winners where advantages to any individual are ascribed by birth. What we want is to shape a system of meritocracy in Singapore that works for the benefit of all and is consistent with our ideals for a fair and just society.
He added that it is not going to be easy to do this and there are "no ready-made solutions".
Mr Wong, who is also the Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information, also believes that evolving leadership in a new environment of active citizenry and civic participation will be more challenging.
"It is not always possible to align everyone to the same view. Leaders also have to decide, explain the basis for decisions they make and take responsibility for the outcomes," explained Mr Wong.
With a general election and two by-elections held recently in the country, the topic of politics was very much predominant at the Singapore.
Perspectives and participants at the seminar wanted to know what role opposition politicians and their parties can play in the country's political development.
More leadership needed for better governance: Lawrence Wong
By Amir Hussain, TODAY, 29 Jan 2013
The ability to look beyond the short-term has been crucial to the success of many of Singapore’s policies, but it has become more difficult for leaders to take the long-term view now, said Acting Culture, Community and Youth Minister Lawrence Wong yesterday.
In addition to the Government’s policies and actions being subjected to “daily barracking”, the “daily incessant round of the 24-hour news cycle, its noise amplified by the social media, will make governance more difficult here as it has elsewhere”, said Mr Wong.
He was speaking at the Singapore Perspectives 2013 conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).
Mr Wong said better governance in Singapore would therefore call for more leadership so as to retain the long-term perspective and make difficult decisions that will yield long-term benefits.
This, he added, should come alongside an improved system of meritocracy, an active citizenry and a vibrant civic society, and a better understanding of the interdependencies between the state and markets.
Good governance, however, also needs a “diversity of ideas and competing options”, said IPS Senior Research Fellow Donald Low, who was also on the panel with Mr Wong.
Pointing to top academic institutions that do not immediately hire their doctoral graduates, in a move to ensure “cognitive diversity”, Mr Low disagreed with having “a system that is critically dependent on a similar group of people, no matter how bright they may be”.
Mr Low - a former high flying civil servant - suggested that the Government send bureaucrats to academic institutions to expose them to more ideas, noting that senior civil servants “don’t have enough exposure”.
He added: “In almost all my conversations with senior policy makers I am struck by how confident, almost to the point of smugness … and they betray no signs of uncertainty, of doubt. .. What comes across to me is confidence, and I think that confidence worries me sometimes.”
He called for institutions supporting diversity and dissent, and for the Government to provide citizens and researchers with more access to information. Greater diversity, he said, would “bolster trust in our system of governance and enhances Government’s credibility”.
Adding that he is “less worried” about the dangers of political polarisation, than he is of the “effects of incumbency, inertia of the status quo and the tyranny of ideas”, Mr Low urged policy experimentation and for policies to be empirically measured.
Agreeing, Mr Wong said that moving forward, governance might have to involve risks in the form of local experiments of policy options, so as to test new ideas before implementing policies nationally.
Parties need to avoid partisan politics: Sylvia Lim
By Tessa Wong, The Straits Times, 29 Jan 2013
WORKERS' Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim said yesterday that she makes submissions on government policies away from the public eye, as she believes that political parties need to avoid partisan politics.
And the ministries have treated her feedback objectively, she added.
Ms Lim, an MP for Aljunied GRC, said that as political parties, "we need to constantly check ourselves to avoid getting too embroiled in partisan politics and miss the wood for the trees".
The wood here is the people's well-being, she added.
"We should guard against one- upmanship and ask ourselves, where lies the greater good?" she said at the Singapore Perspectives conference organised by the Institute of Policy Studies.
She also said the WP views political competition as a "safeguard" to improve people's lives.
It contests elections to provide this competition so that the Government is required to show it has performed. In Parliament, it keeps the Government accountable on matters of public interest by pressing it on such issues.
She also stressed, in response to a question about the difference between the People's Action Party (PAP) and the WP, that her party has ideological differences with the PAP in such areas as social justice, civil liberties and issues of governance like transparency and accountability.
Ms Lim acknowledged that some have criticised the WP for being too moderate. But the WP takes this position because of its beliefs, and also because it is sustainable as the party takes into account public support, she added.
"If we find we have no support for the things that we are doing, then I think it's fine for us to review and do things differently.
"But so far, I can see we do have some public support, I believe Singaporeans as a whole do appreciate the opposition politics of the sort that we offer to them."
Related
↧
S'pore rebuts 'D+' grade in defence anti-graft index
Government tells international group why it doesn't reveal military spending details
By Hoe Pei Shan, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
THE Singapore Government has rebutted a Transparency International report that gave the Republic a "D+" grade in its first Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index.
The Government explained why it does not publicise its military and security spending and stressed its safeguards against corruption in this area.
The Berlin-based group, which has traditionally ranked Singapore as one of the world's least corrupt nations, said in its report: "Overall, the defence and security sector is characterised by a dearth of public information, offset by strong controls against personnel corruption risks."
It grouped Singapore together with Lebanon, South Africa and Mexico as nations with a "high risk" of corruption within government defence.
It looked at 82 countries that accounted for 94 per cent of global military expenditure in 2011 and scored them in bands from very low risk (A) to critical risk (F), after assessing 77 indicators in five key risk areas: politics, finance, personnel, operations and procurement.
It said Singapore fared poorly in areas like financial risk, noting that "no information exists on asset disposal or on any scrutiny it may be subjected to". It also noted that no specific legislation regulates defence procurement.
But Singapore did better in areas like personal corruption risk, where the report noted "effective measures appear to be in place for deterring facilitation payments and bribery".
Dr Oliver Cover, principal author of the study, said Transparency International had engaged with the Singapore Government in coming up with this index, although he had not anticipated Singapore's eventual D+ rating.
In its three-page response, the Singapore Government explained why the Ministry of Defence did not make information more transparent, and emphasised its "zero tolerance policy on corruption".
It also noted that Mindef's monies are "well spent" and that it only buys what it needs.
It listed Mindef's anti-corruption initiatives, including regular security vetting of officers, seminars on professional ethics and corruption-related topics, regular internal audits of its departments at all levels of management, as well as regular reviews of financial procedures and anti-corruption measures.
"All suspected cases of bribery or corruption will be referred to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency that reports directly to the Prime Minister's Office, for investigation and follow-up actions," it added.
"Servicemen who have been convicted of bribery or corruption will be discharged from service in addition to the punishment meted out by the courts."
It also said that defence procurement is governed by rules based on "the principles of competition, transparency, fairness and value for money", and added: "Within the Government, there is clear segregation of duties in the procurement process to avoid conflict of interests."
The chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Defence and Foreign Affairs, Dr Lim Wee Kiak, was surprised by the D+ grade, saying Singapore has a "low risk of corruption".
"I don't think this index signifies much at all and it's not very fair to expect us to reveal information that involves national security," said Dr Lim.
"We shouldn't look too much into the low grade. We don't have to try to win favour or try to score high when national security is more important."
↧
'Cash for commercial clunkers' proposal
Govt studying motor group's plan to get greener goods vehicles on road
By Christopher Tan, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
THE Motor Traders Association (MTA) has mooted a proposal to give a cash grant to encourage owners of old commercial vehicles to switch to new, environment-friendlier ones.
The Government is studying the plan, which calls for a one-off incentive payment of at least $10,000 per replacement of a pre-Euro 4 vehicle with a model that meets Euro 4 or higher standards.
This is similar to the US$3 billion (S$3.7 billion) "cash for clunkers" scheme in the United States in 2009 to replace old fuel-guzzling cars and trucks and Hong Kong's HK$770 million scheme in 2007 to replace old, pollutive diesel commercial vehicles.
The MTA said more certificates of entitlement (COEs) will have to be released at the same time to prevent any tax grant from being negated by higher COE premiums.
The COE price for commercial vehicles has been rising in recent years and hit a record $63,035 last month. At the latest tender last week, it closed at $57,051.
A slew of disincentives were also proposed, including tighter enforcement of emission rules, stiffer penalties and surcharges for those who want to revalidate the COE of older vehicles.
MTA vice-president Glenn Tan said: "Currently, we have the Carbon Emissions-Based Vehicle Scheme (CEVS) to encourage environment-friendly cars but we don't have anything similar for commercial vehicles. And diesel commercial vehicles are the ones that are more pollutive."
In a 10-page White Paper submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) in November, the MTA said that based on the current replacement rate of old commercial vehicles, MEWR's target to boost air quality substantially by 2020 is unlikely to be met.
This is because about 70 per cent of Singapore's 178,000 goods vehicles and buses do not even meet the Euro 4 emission standard implemented here in 2006.
Of that, about half do not even meet the Euro 2 standard.
According to Land Transport Authority data, 45 per cent of goods vehicles are over nine years old as at last month, more than twice the percentage in 2005.
The MTA said a plan to introduce the Euro 5 standard next year and cleaner diesel fuel by July this year would not help much.
A MEWR spokesman said it is studying the proposals. "Our objective of cleaner air would be achieved sooner if the renewal of older diesel vehicles could be speeded up rather than delayed. The lessons in the earlier experience will be taken into account."
In October 2006, the Government rolled out the Euro 4 emission standard for diesel vehicles - a date which Japanese manufacturers could not comply with on time.
That led to the Japanese brands - which accounted for the lion's share of sales - being absent from the market for about a year.
That in turn caused COE premiums for commercial vehicles to crash to $1 for three consecutive months in 2007, prompting tens of thousands of fleet owners to extend the lifespan of their vehicles because it had become significantly cheaper to do so.
The result is that older vehicles continue to be in use till today.
Mr Tan of the MTA acknowledged that grants will have to come from government revenue but added that "there are larger benefits to be had" from getting old pollutive vehicles off the road.
Asian Clean Fuels Association executive director Clarence Woo agrees.
While switching to better quality fuels can bring immediate benefits, maximum gains will come only if the fuel is used in vehicles with the latest green technologies.
He added: "I am quite concerned about current COE prices... a lot of owners of older vehicles say they are now forced to hold back purchases, and may even have to keep their vehicles for another 10 years."
Below standard
- About 70 per cent of Singapore's 178,000 goods vehicles and buses do not meet the Euro 4 emission standard implemented here in 2006.
- Of that, about half do not even meet the Euro 2 standard.
- 45 per cent of goods vehicles are more than nine years old as at last month, more than twice the percentage in 2005, according to Land Transport Authority data.
HIGH COE COST NOT HELPING
I am quite concerned about current COE prices... a lot of owners of older vehicles say they are now forced to hold back purchases, and may even have to keep their vehicles for another 10 years.
- Asian Clean Fuels Association executive director Clarence Woo
↧
HDB offers over 3,300 new flats under 6 BTO projects
By Olivia Siong, Channel NewsAsia, 29 Jan 2013
HDB on Tuesday launched six new BTO projects with a total of 3,346 flats in three mature towns -- Ang Mo Kio, Kallang/Whampoa and Tampines -- and three non-mature towns -- Choa Chu Kang, Hougang and Yishun.
This is the first tranche of the 23,000 BTO flats which HDB has planned for 2013.
This is also the first time that married couples with children under the age of 16 will enjoy priority allocation under the new Parenthood Priority Scheme (PPS) as announced on January 21.
HDB will set aside a fixed quota of 30 per cent of BTO flats for them.
It is a welcome move for those with children.
"The government has given us priority, so we have come to try our luck," said Mr Wee.
"I think it's a good move in the right direction. We're planning another (child) anyway and I think it might benefit us in the future," said Mr Joshua Yak.
But Mohamed Ashadi and his wife who are expecting their first child in two months are disappointed they do not quality for the PPS at this month's BTO exercise.
Eligible first-timer households can enjoy up to S$60,000 of housing grants comprising additional CPF housing grant of S$40,000 and special CPF housing grant of S$20,000.
HDB said with these grants included, 3-room flats would be priced from as low as S$105,000 and 4-room flats from S$214,000 in the BTO project in Choa Chu Kang.
The supply under the PPS scheme comes from the quota for first-timers, so this means a smaller quota of flats for those without children.
Previously, all first-timers were allocated 85 per cent of flats in non-mature estates and 95 per cent of flats in mature estates.
But with 30 per cent of flats now allocated to married couples with young children, first-timer couples without children will be allocated 55 per cent of flats in non-mature estates and 65 per cent of flats in mature estates.
Mr Pirani said: "What they have planned is pretty much OK because people who have kids, they need to have flats, they have more urgency. It's all right, no complaints."
While analysts expect more enthusiastic response for the new flats, they do not see the priority scheme making that much of a difference.
Lee Sze Teck, senior manager of Research and Consultancy at Dennis Wee Group, said: "Since this is the first BTO that the policy would be in effect, we are likely to see perhaps more applications for flats."
He added: "The supply for this PPS comes out of the supply for first-timers. We expect the overall subscription rate for first-timers to go up a bit.
"(But) we don't think that the people applying under the PPS will be a lot because if people are already used to not owning a home, you might not see a lot of them wanting to convert to home ownership."
HDB said that the next batch of BTO flats would be launched in March. A total of 3,890 new flats will be offered in Bukit Batok, Punggol and Sengkang.
↧
↧
Population White Paper
Population could hit 6.9m by 2030
Govt says it is planning ahead to cope with projected rise in numbers
By Rachel Chang, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
Govt says it is planning ahead to cope with projected rise in numbers
By Rachel Chang, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
Of that, the resident population of citizens and permanent residents will likely be around 4.4 million. The core of citizens is projected to number 3.8 million, or just over half the total population.
The non-resident foreigner ranks - comprising foreign workers, expatriates and students - will make up 36 per cent of the population, up from 28 per cent now.
They are projected to number 2.5 million in 2030, up from 1.5 million now.
While unveiling this scenario in a widely anticipated Population White Paper yesterday, the Government sought to pre-empt anxieties with assurances that it is planning ahead to cope with the projected population growth and avoid "today's problem" of over-crowding and infrastructural strain.
Land has been identified for 700,000 new homes - complete with recreational areas and green spaces. More details will be out later this week.
Land has been identified for 700,000 new homes - complete with recreational areas and green spaces. More details will be out later this week.
Plans are also in place to double the rail network by 2030, and 80 per cent of households should be within 10 minutes' walking distance from an MRT station.
Even with 6.9 million people, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean emphasised yesterday, Singapore's density will be 13,000 people per sq km - considerably lower than Hong Kong's 22,000 per sq km.
He was flanked by six ministers as he laid out the Government's population road map, which he said has three components.
The first is a push to grow the Singaporean core through a $2 billion-a-year package to encourage marriage and parenthood, announced last week.
The second is to sustain the sort of dynamic economy that produces top jobs for the more highly educated citizen core.
By 2030, he noted, two-thirds of the local workforce will be in the professional, manager, engineer and technician (PMET) category, and will aspire to more highly skilled and rewarding jobs.
These, said Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin, come "when you have good companies coming here". For that reason, he noted, the doors must remain open to global talent.
The third is to maintain a high-quality living environment for Singaporeans that avoids the strain of recent years.
Commenting on the population road map on Facebook yesterday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said the Government's goal is to ensure that "Singapore continues thriving, for the sake of our younger generation".
The White Paper projects that the workforce will expand at 1 per cent to 2 per cent a year from now until 2020. From 2020 to 2030, it will drop to 1 per cent a year.
The bulk of the growth will be from injections of foreign manpower as Singaporean baby-boomers age and leave the workforce.
These projected growth rates are a fraction of the pace at which the workforce had expanded in the past. From 1980 to 2010, it grew at 3.3 per cent on average every year.
In fact, economists said yesterday that businesses should prepare themselves for more curbs on foreign workers to come if these new growth rates are to be adhered to.
Coupled with a hoped-for 2 to 3 per cent rise in productivity every year, the White Paper projects yearly economic growth of 3 to 5 per cent from now until 2020.
From 2020 to 2030, the projected growth rate is 2 to 3 per cent annually - "not scintillating, but not sedentary", said Second Minister for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran.
Asked what message he had for Singaporeans who might be uncomfortable with the population projections, DPM Teo said the Government is trying to find "the appropriate balance" between its conflicting national priorities.
There are no simple solutions, he said, and he expects different views and "a full debate" when he seeks Parliament's endorsement next week.
NO EASY FORMULA
Our goal is simple: to ensure Singapore continues thriving, for the sake of our younger generation. But our population challenges are difficult and complex. It is not just the headline number which matters, but getting the right mix of citizens and PRs, creating exciting opportunities for our people, and building a city that offers a high quality of life and a nation that is the best home for all of us. Parliament will be debating the White Paper next week. Do read the White Paper to understand what is at stake.
- PM Lee Hsien Loong
NO EASY FORMULA
Our goal is simple: to ensure Singapore continues thriving, for the sake of our younger generation. But our population challenges are difficult and complex. It is not just the headline number which matters, but getting the right mix of citizens and PRs, creating exciting opportunities for our people, and building a city that offers a high quality of life and a nation that is the best home for all of us. Parliament will be debating the White Paper next week. Do read the White Paper to understand what is at stake.
- PM Lee Hsien Loong
Enough land for 700,000 more homes
Population density to rise but quality of life will be sustained, say ministers
By Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
By Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
SINGAPORE has enough land set aside to build 700,000 more homes by 2030, when the population is projected to be in the range of 6.5 million to 6.9 million.
New towns will be built in areas such as Bidadari, Tampines North and Tengah, and there will be more housing in the central region and in mature estates with pockets of land available, especially around transport hubs.
All these plans will be rolled out in tandem with nurturing the environment and heritage, said the White Paper outlining Singapore's population strategy.
The policy document forecasted slower but higher quality economic growth on the back of a "calibrated approach" to immigration and foreign workers, as Singapore grapples with the twin challenges of low fertility and an ageing workforce.
The population is estimated to reach 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030 in this scenario.
While the population density will go up from 11,000 people per sq km today to about 13,000 in 2030, the quality of life here will not be sacrificed, said ministers yesterday at a briefing.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean noted that, at 13,000, Singapore's population density is still way below that of other cities such as Hong Kong, where the figure is 22,000 per sq km.
He assured Singaporeans that policymakers have looked ahead to ensure sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of a larger population - and that there will not be a repeat of past miscalculations.
National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan added: "You can have a higher, seemingly highly dense rebuilt city but considered as highly liveable."
He said Singapore might be better off than some cities with smaller populations and a lower density.
"Population and density per se are important factors but they are not the only factors that determine liveability. The key is good planning, good infrastructure," he said.
In recent years, a heavy inflow of foreigners led to a squeeze on transport and housing, fuelling concerns over the cost of living.
On the review of Singapore's population strategy that led to the White Paper, DPM Teo said that "we don't look only at the long term, 2020 or 2030, but also to the medium term to make sure we address the current infrastructure issues that we are facing".
In the nearer term, some steps the Government has taken include adding 800 new buses over the next five years, 110,000 more public housing units and 90,000 private homes by 2016, and 4,100 new hospital beds by 2020.
![]()
Mr Khaw said that the Government will build a buffer "wherever possible" to cater to demand for homes.
But planners have to find that "sweet spot" in balancing demand and supply as the future is uncertain and projections are only estimates, he added.
"Underdo it then we have today's problem, overdo it then it is too costly for taxpayers... We have to find that sweet spot."
Observers said that it all comes down to adequate planning. Institute of Policy Studies research associate Christopher Gee said that "with the right planning and sufficient time to execute, the physical infrastructure can be built to accommodate the population".
Dr Tan Khay Boon, senior lecturer at SIM Global Education, noted however that it will be challenging to maintain a high quality of living with a bigger population.
"More communication with the public may be needed to address this concern," he said.
The ministry is releasing a land-use plan paper tomorrow to give more details.
Goal: 15,000-25,000 new citizens a year
By Goh Chin Lian, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
The projection is not a major departure from the current situation: In the past five years, an average of 18,500 new citizens have taken the oath each year.
To ensure Singapore can draw on a pool of suitable candidates for citizenship, the Government will continue to do what it has been doing in the past three years - give permanent resident status to 30,000 foreigners a year.
These plans that mark a new approach to immigration are, however, just part of the picture on Singapore's population in the next 20 years, as laid out in a White Paper released yesterday.
The other part involves new pro-family measures to encourage citizens to marry and give birth, and greater efforts at integrating new immigrants into Singapore society.
Striking a fine balance between the two is the Government's goal, said Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean at a press conference on the White Paper on a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore.
"If we don't grow at all, or shrink, then we will face all the problems of an ageing population but lack the dynamism in the economy... But if we go too quickly, then we may go beyond the constraints that we have," he said.
The new immigration policy is expected to shore up the resident population of citizens and PRs to between 4.2 million and 4.4 million in 2030. This will be a 10 to 15 per cent rise from the 3.82 million as of June last year.
The citizen population, in turn, will climb from 3.29 million to between 3.6 million and 3.8 million, with the PR population stabilising at 500,000 to 600,000. If there was no immigration, the citizen population would shrink from 2025 in the wake of the current low total fertility rate of 1.2.
Stressing the need to inject new blood from abroad, the White Paper said: "We will continue to welcome new citizens and permanent residents who can contribute to Singapore, add to our diversity, share our values and integrate into society. They supplement our population, and help build a stronger and more sustainable Singaporean core."
Singapore has tightened its immigration policy in recent years, following a 2009 review, prompted by unhappiness over the flood of foreigners from the mid-2000s. The number of people given PR status fell from 79,000 in 2008 to almost 30,000 annually in the past three years.
But the new immigration rate is not set in stone, said the White Paper. It will be reviewed from time to time, based on the quality of applicants, birth rates and changing needs.
Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs, in response to a question at the White Paper press conference, assured the Malay community the changes will not affect their position. He said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had twice given the assurance that "it is the government policy to ensure that we maintain a racial balance as far as possible".
The White Paper also identified a growing contributor of new citizens: non-Singaporeans who wed Singaporeans. They make up four in 10 Singaporean marriages a year, or about 9,000 in 2011.
Asked if rules would be eased for their spouses to become citizens, Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Grace Fu said: "We do not intend at this moment to encourage one way or the other."
4 in 10 S’poreans married foreigners in 2012
If trend keeps up, policymakers may have to reconsider stand on dual citizenship: Analysts
By Ashley Chia, TODAY, 30 Jan 2013
Married to an American who works in the US Army, Ms Rachel Tang, 30, a Singaporean civil servant, has considered giving up her Singapore citizenship for an American one to enjoy the opportunities open to its citizens.
Yet, she is reluctant to let go of what Singapore has to offer, such as “the good education system and higher economic growth” here compared to some parts of the United States.
Meanwhile, Mr Wier Thong, 29, a Singaporean sales associate, is married to Madam Jessie Li Jie, 30, from China, whose Chinese passport is an obstacle to them travelling because of the visa requirements. However, with ageing parents to care for back home, Mdm Li, who holds a Long-Term Visit Pass, does not want to give up her Chinese citizenship.
Ms Tang and Mr Thong are among the growing pool of Singaporeans who marry non-Singaporeans.
And as the Government looks at ways to strengthen its Singaporean core while growing its population, Ms Tang and Mr Thong hope that it will, for instance, reconsider its stand on dual citizenship so they need not be torn between two countries.
Last year, 9,000 marriages registered in Singapore — or about four in 10 — involved a Singaporean and a non-Singaporean. That figure has held steady for the past five years.
In the White Paper on population released yesterday, the Government said that Singapore’s immigration policy “must also take into account” this growing proportion, including children born to Singaporean citizens overseas.
Analysts whom TODAY spoke to said that if this trend continues, it may prompt policymakers to reconsider dual citizenship, although they stressed that changing the law is not the only way to encourage this group to “sink in their roots”.
Sociologist and former Nominated Member of Parliament Paulin Straughan, a staunch advocate of dual citizenship, called for more measures such as courting and engaging children below 21 born overseas and who carry dual citizenship, to make them feel that Singapore is their home.
“Many of them have already been educated here ... allow them to sink in their roots, build their careers without fear that they have to give up their Singapore citizenship,” urged Associate Professor Straughan, adding that the ones who stay would “contribute meaningfully” to Singapore society.
In 2011, about 2,000 children were granted citizenship upon registration by their parents.
Assoc Prof Straughan also suggested a “differentiated system” where only children with one Singaporean parent be allowed dual citizenship. But Member of Parliament Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang GRC) said dual citizenship could cause a “loss of identity”. People could also exploit the system, such as finding ways out of obligations like National Service, he pointed out.
Senior research fellow Leong Chan Hoong at the Institute of Policy Studies said dual citizenship is becoming increasingly common. Although the Government has never said “no” to the proposition, the understanding is that “the time is not right”, he noted.
In demand: Those in health care and low-skilled jobs, and global talent
By Rachel Chang, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
THE intake of foreign workers is projected to slow substantially from now on, but the Government made it clear in its Population White Paper yesterday that it will keep the door open for three groups of migrant workers.
The first are foreigners to support Singapore's social needs - such as health-care and eldercare workers, who will be in great demand when one in five Singaporeans is older than 65 in 2030.
The second are foreigners to do the routine, low-skilled jobs in sectors such as construction, retail and food services. If wages are raised enough to attract locals to such jobs, costs will rise sharply. Even then, Singaporeans may still aspire for higher-skilled and more rewarding work, noted the White Paper.
The third group of foreigners whom Singapore will continue to welcome are global talent with cutting-edge skills and abilities.
These foreigners will help "kick-start" new industries in Singapore, said the White Paper, and through the transfer of skills train local workers in these sectors.
Plus, it added, a foreign contingent in the workforce acts as a buffer against local retrenchment in a recession.
In response to Singaporeans' concerns about unfair job competition from foreigners, the White Paper said that incidents of discrimination should be raised with the Tripartite Alliance for Fair Employment Practices.
From now until 2020, the workforce is projected to grow at a pace of 1 per cent to 2 per cent a year. Of this, 0.7 percentage point will be from the entry of locals, while the rest will be from the injection of foreign manpower.
From 2020 to 2030, the workforce is projected to grow at 1 per cent a year, of which the local contribution will shrink to 0.1 percentage point.
These projected growth rates are about half the 3.3 per cent average rate of the last 30 years.
It is substantially lower than the pace of recent years.
From 2007 to last year, the workforce swelled at a rate of about 7 per cent a year.
The Government has explained that this rapid expansion is a result of the decision to grab growth opportunities when they arose.
But when asked yesterday if it will breach its new projections for workforce expansion if such opportunities come up in the future, Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin said: "We need to forgo some of that because there's a cost that comes with growth.
"I think if we allow fairly unfettered growth, if we meet all the demands that are raised to us, you will also find that the numbers become quite untenable."
Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy Associate Professor Hui Weng Tat told The Straits Times that businesses should expect tighter controls on foreign workers, if the 1 to 2 per cent growth projection is to be realised in the next seven years.
SIM Global Education senior lecturer Tan Khay Boon said companies will scale down, close down or relocate in this period.
"But we have proven in the past that we can adapt to changes when the need arises. In the long term, it is possible that the productivity growth will be more significant as firms will view it as the only way to survive and grow."
Transport network to meet demand: Lui
By Goh Chin Lian, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
THE population could go up by 30 per cent between now and 2030, and transport planners are ensuring that the rail network will double during that time.
In the short to medium term, the Transport Ministry will raise capacity, improve reliability and manage demand, Minister Lui Tuck Yew said in response to concerns of a repeat of transport congestion as the population grows.
"I am far more concerned and working to address some of the short and medium-term issues," he told a press conference yesterday. Over the past two weeks, Mr Lui has announced plans for two new rail lines and three extensions that will double the rail network from 178km now to about 360km by 2030.
Eight in 10 households will then be within a 10-minute walk of a station, more than the six in 10 now. To help them reach stations comfortably, 200km of covered walkways will be added.
Yesterday, he focused on immediate concerns like boosting capacity, starting with the Downtown Line that will open in stages over the next five years. "Even while it is a three-car line, it is going to add 50 per cent capacity to the East-West corridor," he said.
The North-South corridor will have finished re-signalling work too, adding about 20 per cent capacity during peak hours, while new trains on the North-East Line will be able to carry 70 per cent more passengers by 2015.
On reliability, Mr Lui said efforts are paying off: One train is withdrawn for every thousand train trips on the North-South and East-West lines, an improvement from before. Commuters' feedback also indicates that they have noticed an improvement over the past six months. He said the new target is to reduce the train withdrawal rate by a further 20 per cent by the end of the year.
His ministry is also looking into managing the demand for travel during peak hours, such as working with employers to introduce more flexible working hours.
It will also "watch very closely" the affordability of public transport fares, which have cumulatively risen by about 0.3 per cent over the last five to six years.
The White Paper on Population noted that demand for public transport was underestimated in the second half of the last decade.
It said: "As part of our population planning, we must therefore look well ahead and implement infrastructure plans in a timely manner."
One boy's future in 2030, according to the White Paper
By Goh Chin Lian, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
IN 2030, Daniel Tay will be 24 and ready to step into the working world.
But for every Daniel that joins the workforce, two others will retire, as Singapore's population ages dramatically as a result of low birth rates and people living longer.
This picture is quite different from today's, where two new workers replace every one that leaves.
By 2030, Daniel's older sisters Elizabeth and Anna will be 28 and 26 years old. Rebecca, however, will be 19 and still in school.
By then, the number of seniors aged 65 and older would have tripled to 900,000 in 2030.
Their parents hold white-collar jobs. Mr Augustine Tay is a manager in a software firm and Madam Cheong Sze Chen is a financial consultant and music instructor. Both are 37. And they nurse the hope that their children can have good-paying jobs.
If the White Paper on a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore pans out, two out of three Singaporeans will be professionals, managers, executives and technicians. It is one in two now.
If the White Paper on a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore pans out, two out of three Singaporeans will be professionals, managers, executives and technicians. It is one in two now.
Daniel's colleagues, clients and maybe friends will include foreigners, permanent residents and new citizens, who will give the country a fillip even as economic growth slows to 2 to 3 per cent a year, unlike today's 3 to 5 per cent.
Like his Indonesian maid Pasri Genep Slamt, 29, a foreigner may look after his children.
However, he may not drive a car like his parents, and not only because the cost of doing so is high. The rail network will have doubled. Most people will walk to an MRT station. Trains should not be overcrowded even with 6.9 million people on the island.
And he should find an HDB flat amid green spaces to make his home, with the wait to own one not too long.
Slower, but quality economic growth over next 20 years
By Robin Chan, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
A SLOWER pace of growth can be expected in Singapore over the next 20 years, with the economy projected to expand at about 2 to 3 per cent annually after 2020.
But there is a silver lining in this slowdown, according to the Government's new report on population issues facing the country that was released yesterday.
The growth would be of a quality that will allow the economy to stay competitive to create high- value and good jobs for Singaporeans amid a rising Asia, said Second Minister for Trade and Industry S. Iswaran at a press conference. The projection will also help ensure the country strikes a balance between staying dynamic and avoiding over-straining the economy with searing growth.
"It is a challenging but realistic forecast of what we can achieve based on our aspirations and our domestic constraints," said Mr Iswaran, elaborating on the White Paper on a Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore.
"If we want to support the aspirations, then we need a certain level of growth that will ensure vibrancy, a certain pep in the economy to create more opportunities, not just for Singaporeans in terms of jobs but also for our businesses... A slower growth rate compared to the historical rates does not mean the growth cannot be one of quality," he added.
As Singaporeans become more educated, the number in white- collar PMET jobs will swell from half the workforce to about two- thirds by 2030. This means 1.25 million Singaporeans will be professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMET), against 850,000 today.
Such jobs, said Acting Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin, "come when you have good companies being here". "So we need to remain competitive, productive and attractive enough for them to exist," he added.
But the projected economic growth rate will not come easy, as two factors have to change: The labour force will have to expand slower, while productivity needs to rise faster than in the past.
If productivity is to grow 2 to 3 per cent a year, and the labour force, 1 to 2 per cent at the same time, Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) growth will be about 3 to 5 per cent. But to expect productivity to rise at around 3 per cent is a "stretch target", so overall economic growth is more likely to be between 3 and 4 per cent from now to 2020.
And from 2020 to 2030, productivity growth is likely to slow to about 1 to 2 per cent each year, because high productivity is a struggle for mature economies.
In addition, Singapore's greying population means the labour force will inch up even slower, at about 1 per cent a year over the later decade. Together, these will result in an annual GDP growth of 2 to 3 per cent.
Said Bank of America Merrill Lynch economist Chua Hak Bin: "Businesses and Singaporeans will have to accept that 2 to 3 per cent is the new growth norm. This represents a balance between achieving economic dynamism and social cohesion."
But economist Yeoh Lam Keong, vice-president of the Economic Society of Singapore, believes the Government could further cut labour force growth.
"I don't think the difference in additional jobs created is going to be that significant relative to the crowdedness and difficulties with a bigger foreigner population."
Association of Small and Medium Enterprises president Chan Chong Beng said the slower growth and tighter labour force will be "tough on businesses", but agreed that it was necessary for the long term. "If we don't take this approach we will end up like Japan, with a shrinking workforce and a lot of industries affected. Then it will be too late," he said.
Key figure is growth rate, not headcount
By Tessa Wong And Jessica Cheam, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
WHILE the projected 6.9 million population in Singapore for 2030 is likely to grab eyeballs, experts and Members of Parliament said the more important figure to focus on was the anticipated lower growth rate.
Most felt the 2 to 3 per cent growth in Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) was reasonable.
This gradual decline from a growth of 3 to 5 per cent is "realistic and certainly achievable", DBS economist Irvin Seah said. It is in line with an ageing population.
Ang Mo Kio GRC MP Inderjit Singh noted that in most developed countries, people worry about lower growth as there may not be enough quality jobs and unemployment will rise. But he argued that the situation in Singapore will be different as it has a buffer: its pool of cheap foreign labour, which is still sizeable.
This pool could be reduced further, he said, so that there is room for productivity to grow and employers are willing to pay more. "So, there will still be good jobs for Singaporeans," he said.
Some, however, were unsure whether the lower pace of growth could ensure a continued high standard of living.
"Everybody is going to work three times harder to maintain the current standard of life... if our productivity and service innovations don't kick in. I don't know what we can do to maintain a comfortable standard of living," said senior research fellow Gillian Koh of the Institute of Policy Studies.
Some also voiced concern that lower growth would mean lower wages.
But Mr Seah Kian Peng, member of the Government Parliamentary Committee for National Development and Education, noted the Government's goal to raise real wages by 30 per cent in the current decade, through productivity increases and investment in skills upgrading.
If this is fulfilled, "I think quality of life would not be compromised," he said.
Veteran MP Charles Chong observed that the economic and population growth figures were calibrated "so that we can accept slower growth, and Singaporeans will still be the core".
While most believe that foreigners are essential for a vibrant economy, they said the Government needs to ensure that Singaporeans will still feel valued and that infrastructure is built on time.
The Government will build additional homes and rail lines, and add hospital beds, but these will take time, creating a "lag" that might lead to a "mismatch" between available infrastructure and the population growth, said Moulmein-Kallang GRC MP Edwin Tong.
Political scientist Reuben Wong of the National University of Singapore said the shrinking proportion of the citizen core would pose questions on how the social fabric and a cohesive identity of Singapore will be maintained.
"This is going to be a hard sell, politically," he said.
One way to overcome it is for the Government to explain to people clearly and in detail how their lives will be affected, said sociologist Paulin Straughan.
"People want to understand it in bread-and-butter terms. When you say 2 to 3 per cent GDP growth, what is my job and my salary going to look like?" she said.
"The Government has to ask citizens, are you comfortable with a more modest growth rate? Because if you are not, to go even higher would require an even bigger population growth."
HARD TRUTHS
The Government has to ask citizens, are you comfortable with a more modest growth rate? Because if you are not, to go even higher would require an even bigger population growth.
- Sociologist Paulin Straughan
The Government has to ask citizens, are you comfortable with a more modest growth rate? Because if you are not, to go even higher would require an even bigger population growth.
- Sociologist Paulin Straughan
Population road map: It's the day-to-day journey that matters
By Lydia Lim, The Straits Times, 30 Jan 2013
IT IS an uphill task to convince a broad swathe of Singaporeans that a future population of 6.9 million will fit nicely on this small island, given the current congestion on trains and buses and a housing shortfall of recent memory.
It is also easy to mistake that figure as a target, and to misunderstand the Government's White Paper as a road map to get to 6.9 million people. But 6.9 million is neither the Government's starting nor end point.
"Our goal is simple," Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong wrote on Facebook yesterday. "To ensure Singapore continues thriving, for the sake of our younger generation."
What is less simple is the how. And that is what the White Paper grapples with.
The three challenges are: a shortage of Singaporean babies, creating enough good jobs for Singaporeans and a good quality of life. Now, how do these add up to a projected population of 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030?
Let's start with babies.
Singapore's total fertility rate (TFR) has been below replacement level for three decades. At the current TFR of 1.2, the citizen population will start to shrink from 2030.
The White Paper proposes more baby boosters to encourage marriage and parenthood. The Government will bump up its spending on this from $1.6 billion to $2 billion a year.
Singapore will also take in 15,000 to 25,000 new citizens a year to prevent this shrinkage, so "we don't die out like the dinosaurs", as one civil servant put it. As for permanent residents, it will take in 30,000 a year to ensure a pool of suitable potential citizens.
As most of these immigrants will likely be of working age, they will help support the growing number of elderly Singaporeans who have retired.
Next, job creation.
By 2030, two in three Singaporean workers will be professionals, managers, executives and technicians - up from half today. It will be a challenge to create enough good jobs to satisfy the aspirations of this well-educated group, and high-quality jobs for the rest of the workforce.
The White Paper projects a growth rate for the economy that the Government considers realistic and sustainable. That's 3 to 5 per cent a year up to 2020 and 2 to 3 per cent a year thereafter, up to 2030. To keep growing, Singapore will need to remain open to foreigners. The Government is unequivocal on that point.
These foreign workers will do lower-level service jobs that Singaporeans are not keen on. They will build new homes and train lines. They will help families take care of their elderly members.
A smaller number will be here to set up and run new industries.
To have enough people to do all these things, the White Paper estimates Singapore will need 1.8 million to 1.9 million foreigners by 2020, and 2.3 million to 2.5 million foreigners by 2030. Most of them will be in the workforce. Some will be students and the rest dependants of those working here. Add up these three groups - citizens, PRs and foreigners - and one ends up with a population of up to 6.9 million by 2030.
The main purpose of putting down this figure is so the ministries in charge of building homes and train lines can plan and act ahead of demand.
The White Paper sets out how the Government intends to provide for Singaporeans young and old. If all goes as planned, the future may well turn out to be more vibrant than today, with good- quality jobs, a high quality of life and a nation that can still cohere with Singaporeans at the core.
The White Paper may be the end outcome of a consultation process. But it is really also the start of another challenge: winning over ordinary Singaporeans.
And they will judge the population road map not on the logic of its projections but on their own experience of policies as felt on the ground.
In the end, that figure of 6.9 million will matter less and less if the Government delivers on its pledge to make life better for the Singaporean core.
Related
Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore
Land Use Plan
Marriage & Parenthood Package 2013
Related
Population White Paper: A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore
Land Use Plan
Marriage & Parenthood Package 2013
↧
Applications open for flats under Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme
Channel NewsAsia, 31 Jan 2013
The Housing and Development Board (HDB) has launched its first batch of flats under the new rental housing scheme to support marriage and parenthood.
Applications for the 1,150 available flats under the Parenthood Provisional Housing Scheme opened on Thursday and will close on February 20.
The scheme provides an affordable housing option for first-timer applicants with children who need temporary housing while waiting for their new HDB flats to be completed.
Monthly rentals range from S$800 to S$1,900, depending on the flat type and location.
The flats are in Ang Mo Kio, Bedok South, Boon Lay Drive and Dover Road.
They are primarily vacated Selective En-bloc Redevelopment Scheme flats that are not immediately needed for land redevelopment.
The flats are unfurnished but are retrofitted with basic fittings.
HDB is carrying out the retrofitting works and the flats will be ready for occupation from mid-2013.
↧
HK ponders weak population growth - with an eye on S'pore
By Li Xueying, The Straits Times, 31 Jan 2013
HONG KONG - In 2007, then chief executive Donald Tsang outlined a vision for Hong Kong. It should have a population of 10 million to keep up with New York and London as a global financial centre, he said.
The city's population then was 6.9 million. Six years on, it has inched up to 7.2 million.
Over the same period, Singapore's population jumped from 4.5 million to 5.3 million. This is projected to increase to 6.9 million by 2030, according to a White Paper released on Tuesday.
The contrasting pictures between the two cities have experts here worried about the way forward for Hong Kong, often pitted as a rival to Singapore.
The South China Morning Post reported yesterday that Singapore's population plans have led to calls for Hong Kong's government to get its act together on population policy.
A public discussion is overdue, they say, and hard choices - such as whether to reverse a populist policy banning mainland babies from being born here - need to be made.
Three academics who sit on a steering committee on population headed by Chief Secretary Carrie Lam tell The Straits Times that Hong Kong is facing a demographic time bomb, with a low fertility rate, an ageing population and a shrinking labour force. The committee, which had its first meeting two weeks ago, is to recommend strategies.
But they doubt Hong Kong will open its doors to immigrants to a similar extent as in Singapore.
"That is out of the question," said Professor Hau Kit Tai, pro vice-chancellor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Added sociologist Alfred Chan of Lingnan University: "Hong Kongers are monocultural and with the reactions to mainland visitors - not even immigrants - there is already a big headache.
"So my view is that it's not part of Hong Kong's history to import people, and perhaps our Filipino and Indonesian maids here represent the limit of what people would accept."
Just 5 per cent of Hong Kong's population are foreigners - mainly domestic helpers, as well as expatriates whose companies have to prove that they could not find local workers.
Among Hong Kongers, there are a few thousand foreign-born who are mainly artists and other skilled talents, said Prof Hau. There are about 217,000 mainlanders who have been allowed to settle here since 1997, subject to a daily quota of 150. Many are relatives of Hong Kongers.
Reflecting the controversial nature of the topic, the experts are divided on whether Hong Kong should allow more foreigners in.
Prof Hau believes the city's immediate challenge is not so much a population decline. Instead, "what is alarming is the change in the profile", he said.
The population is ageing fast, with those aged 65 and above expected to nearly triple to 2.56 million in 2041. The labour force will start shrinking after 2018.
Said Prof Hau: "Right now, we have to be thinking of how to provide services for the large number of older people who cannot sustain their lives."
But in the long term, increasing the number of foreigners is a tough question that has to be asked, said Prof Chan. He believes physical space can be made - whether it is by flattening hills, developing outlying islands, or even reclaiming land in the New Territories up to Shenzhen.
"The problem is not space, but the people's mindset," he said. "Sooner or later, to compete with Singapore, we need parallel policies."
Added demographer Paul Yip of Hong Kong University: "We need at least a conversation on whether we can accept lower economic growth as a trade-off."
↧