Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

The government blames the ordinary folks for not making enough babies, and that is the reason why they will need to increase the population to 7 million people.

However, do not worry because the government assures the public that they have considered the main aspects for a population of 7 million people.

They said that they have considered 1)housing, 2)transport, and 3)healthcare.

But there is more to that than these three aspect.

One other strain I foresee is education. To sustain that many people, the government will need to build good quality schools with good quality teachers. In addition, the government will need to build good quality childcare centers with good quality teachers over there.

If the government would want to rely on the private sector to create good quality childcare, the cost for parents to send their kids to these childcare centers will just escalate. The demand will go beyond the supply, and childcare centers will actually be good businesses to get into. (on a side note: fellow investors, if the population does continue to increase at such a rapid rate, I think a good investment would be to invest in children care centers/tution centers)

The race for the top schools in Singapore will be a nightmare for parents. Imagine how much effort parents will need to put in, just to get their kids to good quality schools that will be lacking with a population of 7 million people.

If we look at the situation in the recent by-election, childcare is one issue that the previous leader of that district did not care to provide to its residence.

Who in the right mind, with the escalating cost of education, would want to have kids unless you are very well to do.

Ironically, this is the main reason why the government want to increase the population in the first place. I guess soon, the government will need to write another white paper to increase the population to 8 million

1. It is true quite a lot young adults does not want to marry. They live for themselves.

2. Those that married have fewer kids.


For families to have more kids, need to go back to see our parents, what conditions are in place for them to have more kids.

a. Now, 2 stressed parents work long hours. Come back bring back stress, how to make baby. Ideally 1 household work is conducive for family life.

b. Houses and living conditions must allow support of 1 person work household.

I posted it on an MP facebook that I thought quite open. Got deleted.

So censorship continues in social media...

(06-02-2013, 01:26 PM)natnavi Wrote: The government blames the ordinary folks for not making enough babies, and that is the reason why they will need to increase the population to 7 million people.

However, do not worry because the government assures the public that they have considered the main aspects for a population of 7 million people.

They said that they have considered 1)housing, 2)transport, and 3)healthcare.

But there is more to that than these three aspect.

One other strain I foresee is education. To sustain that many people, the government will need to build good quality schools with good quality teachers. In addition, the government will need to build good quality childcare centers with good quality teachers over there.

If the government would want to rely on the private sector to create good quality childcare, the cost for parents to send their kids to these childcare centers will just escalate. The demand will go beyond the supply, and childcare centers will actually be good businesses to get into. (on a side note: fellow investors, if the population does continue to increase at such a rapid rate, I think a good investment would be to invest in children care centers/tution centers)

The race for the top schools in Singapore will be a nightmare for parents. Imagine how much effort parents will need to put in, just to get their kids to good quality schools that will be lacking with a population of 7 million people.

If we look at the situation in the recent by-election, childcare is one issue that the previous leader of that district did not care to provide to its residence.

Who in the right mind, with the escalating cost of education, would want to have kids unless you are very well to do.

Ironically, this is the main reason why the government want to increase the population in the first place. I guess soon, the government will need to write another white paper to increase the population to 8 million

very good speech from Mr Singh as below (copied from his facebook page http://www.facebook.com/kbinderjit)

it's a pity the ST is not reproducing this...
*****************************************

Speech by Mr Inderjit Singh,
MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC

On the White Paper on Population

Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join the debate on the White Paper on Population.

While the report has some compelling arguments for the 6.9m population figure projected, we all know it is based mainly on economic considerations. Had we focused on things like building a cohesive nation with a strong national identity, the outcome would likely be very different.

I feel the time has come for us to find a better balance between economic growth and social cohesion and yes there will have to be tradeoffs of economic growth but I would rather trade some of these for a cohesive, united nation where people feel taken care of at home and are confident of their future. I am not saying we go for low or no growth. Instead I am willing to adjust my growth expectations for a more comfortable life for all Singaporeans. I am confident we will still be able to pursue respectable economic growth when companies and Singaporeans are faced with a situation of tightened labour availability by focusing on improving ourselves through productivity and higher value capabilities. Finland and other small nations have done, we can do it too.

Our past decade of rapid population growth has already created too many problems which need to be solved first before we take the next step. I call on the government to take a breather for five years, solve all the problems created by the past policies of rapid economic and population growth. We can safely say that we have failed to achieve the goal set by the then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, of a Swiss standard of living for most Singaporeans, except for the higher income Singaporeans including foreigners who just recently decided to make Singapore their home. So I call for a breather in this quest of growing the population and focus on improving the lives of Singaporeans and achieve that promised Swiss Standard of living for most Singaporeans first before we plan our next growth trajectory.

Taking Care of the Singaporean Core
I have a big issue with the number of PRs and new citizens we are planning to add to our population. I don't see the necessity to be as aggressive when the key consideration of the population growth is the economy. We have already added too many new citizens and PRs and need time for integration and social cohesion to happen. Looking at history, our population grew from around 2.4m in 1980 to 3m in 1990 and then to 4m in 2000, reaching 5.3m last year. Just looking at the resident population alone, we grew the numbers from 2.3m in 1980 to 2.7m in 1990, 3.3m in the year 2000 and then to 3.8m last year. So in the last decade we added more than 1m to the resident population, and the in last 25 years, which is close to 1 generation of Singaporeans, we have added another close to 50% more to our resident population. I believe this must be the fastest rate of population growth in the world and I feel this is just too much for us to comfortably go back and build a national identity and social cohesion which was progressing very well till the 1990s. Adding another 500,000 to 800,000 more PRs and citizens as proposed by the white paper will be disastrous and add to our already difficult infrastructure and social problems.

If it is economic growth we want then let's just adopt the Dubai model of a transient workforce which will give us a lot more flexibility to manage numbers in the longer term. On PRs, today we already have too many of them and they are enjoying full citizen privileges without the citizens' responsibilities. For example;
- Far too many PR boys who skip NS when they turn 18. After enjoying the privileges they have a choice of not doing NS and then leave the country. I believe only around 30% of all PR boys do NS today. Well, our Singapore sons don't have a choice but to do NS, it is an office not to do it.
- PR children study at their International system schools sticking to their home cultures.
- PRs can buy HDB flats from the open market driving prices of HDB flats too high.

So I urge the government to reduce the number of projected new PRs and citizens just to the population replacement levels and be more selective and differentiate their privileges from citizens. I have a few suggestions for the government to consider;

• The government in the past couple of years has tried to draw the distinction between PRs and citizens by increasing school fees and healthcare fees for them. But I wonder would it not have been better to instead partially subsidize these same fees for Singapore citizens? So do it the other way round, reduce fees for Singaporeans not just increase for PRs.

• PR children must be made do national service - it should no longer be a choice and we should make it an offence if they don’t do it. We should not grant PRs to families who don’t commit their sons to National Service.

• HDB - if a PR buys a HDB flat from the open market, charge a levy of say $50k and allow them to sell only to Singaporeans. If the PR takes up citizenship within 5 years, we can refund the levy.

• Children of PRs should be made to study in our national schools so that we increase the chance of integrating them at the next generation.

• On the employment front, it is time we implement a Singaporean first hiring policy like what is done in some developed countries like Canada. Companies should show proof first that they were not able to fill a position with a Singaporean before they are allowed to hire a foreigner.

• Reconsider the dependents policy - I have come across a number of cases where our targeted one child from China brings in 2 parents who then bring 2 parents each as their dependents - Net is that we gain one young one child who we brought in for our future but also inherited 6 older people - making our ageing population issue worse not better.

I feel the differentiated privileges will separate the genuine ones from those who are here for a ride. We should grant PRs to those who are most likely going to take up citizenships so these differentiated privileges should not stifle our plans to attract quality PRs and new citizens.

This brings me to the point of how many Singaporeans are feeling about the presence of such huge numbers of new citizens, PRs and foreigners amongst our midst. First for housing - there is no doubt that the influx of foreigners in Singapore has driven up our property prices. PRs are buying HDB flats from the open market which drives up prices.

Just last week I had a dialogue session with my private estates residents and one of my residents complained that a new citizens recently bought a landed property in this old estate and was building a 3 and a half storey towering house. Well the, new citizen, the owner of the house was also present and when, I spoke with him during the tea session I found out that he was a new citizen formerly from China, just gained his citizenship and bought not 1 but 3 landed properties in Kebun Baru alone. I was surprised and saddened because many Singaporeans cannot afford to do the same, and this new citizen, no matter how he may have made his wealth is able to do so.

Many young Singaporeans I talk to, especially those who have recently graduated and have just entered the workforce feel demoralized because many of the things that they grew up aspiring to have are now beyond their reach. Our aggressive growth strategies, which allowed cheaper foreign workers, including professionals to easily gain employment passes degraded or depressed wage levels of many Singaporeans, not just the lower income Singaporeans. I remember when I started work in 1985, my salary was $1900 as an entry level engineer. After a few years I could afford a house and a car. Today, 28 years later, an entry level engineer in Singapore earns $2600, just $700 more than what I earned when I started. The mathematics is very simple, the cost of living did not just go up by 1.3% per annum the last 27 years and even more, the cost of owning a HDB flat is did not just go up by 37% since 1985.

Finally, I am perturbed by the banquet analogy used by Minister Khaw. We are talking about lives of Singaporeans. Our banquet guests come for one night and leave when the function is over. There is no turning back when we grant PR and citizenships. We must be more exact about the numbers we want to add to the Singapore population and not plan on a basis of 'hoping we hit some number". Because if overdo things and end up with a population of more than 7m, it may be too late to stop the fast moving train of population growth when we fire up all the engines of growing the population. We missed the mark the last 10 years, and are already paying a high price for that mistake.

In my speech in this house in 2008 during the committee of supply debate on the population I urged the government to abandon the "the instant tree mentality" in trying to grow the population in response to the declining birth rates. At that time, I did not agree with the rate of growth pursued and we know the consequences and the hardship Singaporeans faced as a result of the rapid growth, Instant trees cannot grow strong roots and can be uprooted in difficult times. I once again urge the government to slow down and plan on reaching their population target over a longer time horizon. I don't think we can live with a 6.9m population in 2030. We may be able to handle it in 2050, no one really knows. Please abandon this 'instant tree" mentality as we cannot afford to make Singaporeans lives more difficult as a result. I rather we err on the side of caution when it comes to growing our population. We cannot keep paying a high price for planning misjudgements.

In Conclusion, I would like to see us take a breather from re-growing our population again. We have too many problems as a result of the last breath taking population growth rate. As a government we need to rebuild the trust and confidence among Singaporeans that our citizens matter most to us and that we are willing take a break from our relentless drive for growth to solve their problems, make their lives more comfortable, give them a better quality of life and show them that any future growth of population will not create similar social and cost of living problems. At this stage many Singaporeans from all walks of life don't have the confidence that we can handle another steep growth of the population, so let's not push it. I would like all of us, including the government to spend the time creating and environment that gives us confidence in our future and one where our young can see a sense of hope of opportunity and if we fail to instil a sense of hope and opportunity for our future generations, we will not be able to root them here and build a strong national identity and a strong nation. This is what building a strong Singapore core should entail. So let's delay all plans for further population growth for now.

source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-06...boost.html


Singaporeans Plan Protest as Parliament Debates Population Boost

Singaporeans are planning a protest next week against the government’s projection of an increase in the island’s population by as much as 30 percent by 2030, as Parliament debates the country’s demographics for a third day.

More than 900 people said on a Facebook page that they will or may join the demonstration on Feb. 16 at Speakers’ Corner at the edge of the city’s financial district. About 9,000 have also “liked” another page that calls for a stand against the government and “Say ‘No’ to an Overpopulated Singapore.”

An influx of immigrants has eroded the popularity of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s ruling party as infrastructure strains and record-high housing and transport costs add to public discontent. The administration has outlined plans for a population of 6.9 million by the end of the next decade with Singaporeans, including new citizens, making up one of every two people on the island smaller in size than New York City.

“The new population policy is anti-Singaporean and it threatens our existence and livelihoods,” Gilbert Goh, the organizer of the protest who runs a non-governmental group to help unemployed citizens, said in an interview. “Singaporeans will be the minority by 2030. We want to show our displeasure.”

Demonstrations in Singapore are rare as the government has strict controls on assemblies and speeches, limiting outdoor protests to locations such as Speakers’ Corner. Authorities say such laws help maintain social stability in a country that was wracked by communal violence between ethnic Malays and Chinese in the 1960s. More than 30 bus drivers from China were arrested or deported after staging an illegal strike in November.
Population Jump

The number of people in Singapore has jumped by more than 1.1 million to 5.3 million since mid-2004, stoking social tensions as the government used immigration to make up for a low birth rate.

In a white paper called “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore” published Jan. 29, the government said it will take in between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens and grant about 30,000 permanent-resident permits annually.

Members of Parliament started a debate on the report on Feb. 4, with Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean seeking endorsement from lawmakers on the proposal. Teo said the 6.9 million projection is for infrastructure planning purposes, and not a target authorities are aiming for.

Singapore is the third-most expensive Asian city to live in and the sixth globally, according to an Economist Intelligence Unit ranking of 131 cities around the world published this week.
Under Pressure

Lee is under pressure to placate voters without disrupting the entry of talent and labor that helped forge the only advanced economy in Southeast Asia. In a city with 3.3 million citizens and 2 million foreigners, complaints about overseas workers depriving locals of jobs and driving up home prices helped opposition parties win record support in the 2011 general election.

Since then, Lee’s People’s Action Party has lost two by- elections. The government “paid a political price” with the infrastructure strains as a result of a bigger population, the prime minister said last week. Still, his party holds 80 of 87 seats in Parliament, suggesting the white paper will be endorsed by the legislative body.

“We fully understand the concerns of Singaporeans of feeling displaced in their own country,” Grace Fu, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, said in Parliament yesterday. “We will continue to take a measured approach in taking in immigrants who can contribute and integrate well into our society.”

Goh, 51, said he expects more than 1,000 people to join the Feb. 16 protest and has received permission from the National Parks Board to use the 0.94 hectare (2.3 acres) ground. Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park, the venue of political rallies in the 1950s and 1960s, was modeled on the section of London’s Hyde Park traditionally set aside for free speech.

“We want to show the government that there is a consolidated voice against its population growth policy,” said Goh, who isn’t affiliated with any political parties after an unsuccessful run for as an opposition candidate in the 2011 poll. “We want them to hear us, but I doubt if they will.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Shamim Adam in Singapore at sadam2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephanie Phang at sphang@bloomberg.net

> They are only good at instant noodle solutions.

And this instant noodle solutions must first of all WIN VOTES.

I am so happy to read Inderjit Singh's speech. Finally one PAP MP has the guts to speak common sense in public i.e. fix the infrastructure/integration problems for the CURRENT population before you even talk about growing the population. "Instant trees" is a great analogy and the "1 young person brings in 6 old persons" shows a very good understanding of how ordinary people think about how to "game" the system.

I wonder how many of the other PAPs are able to think like this. I guess it helps that Inderjit started out as an engineer before going into operations and then becoming an entrepreneur, instead of the common scholar/civil servant origins of many PAP MPs. When you work in a business and later run it, you see all the tricks employed by people.

I think the point about making PR's sons do NS is a great one too. It is very demoralizing for male Singaporeans to see their PR friends get off scot-free after enjoying the benefits of living in Singapore for many years, not least of which is the safety afforded by the reservist system thanks to NS!

Inderjit didn't suggest the proposed punishments, but I think it should be the same as for Singaporeans who go AWOL. Perhaps the father should also do jail time if his son absconds, since the father had to commit many years ago upon taking up PR that his son would do NS. That would no doubt put a severe crimp in the number of PRs, but that will also draw a clear line between the PRs who are enroute to becoming citizens, and those PRs who are here purely for economic reasons - and who should merely be given employment passes or work permits.

I vote Inderjit Singh for Home Affairs Minister!

(06-02-2013, 09:02 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: I vote Inderjit Singh for Home Affairs Minister!

Call me cynical, but I even went so far as to suspect that the PAP may have "planted" certain people to say certain things, all in the name of a "healthy debate".

Or perhaps I am simply too cynical after living on this little red dot for so long!

Below is also a very good speech from Pritam Singh - so far Inderjit and Pritam have delivered convincing and well balanced speeches. Interesting that both are Sikhs (i am not trying to be racist or anything) - the Parliament can certainly do with more diversity of thoughts - the similar backgrounds of the cabinet is certainly of concern - is the ruling party moving too much to the right?

*******************************************

by MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 6 Feb 2013]
Thank you Madam Speaker.
The government ‘s population white paper has been met by a barrage of criticism from ordinary Singaporeans. The government in the last week and Deputy Prime Minister Teo in his opening speech on this motion have been at pains to stress that 6.5-6.9 million is not a target. I, like many Singaporeans who have grown up with the PAP, find this very hard to believe.
It is hard to conceive of a PAP government resisting the temptation of opening the doors to immigration, and then turning back at Singaporeans to say the PAP has brought high economic growth to Singapore and that Singaporeans should be thankful. As the last few years have shown us, GDP growth means little if Singaporeans are not the ones that benefit from it. GDP growth means little if Singaporeans can’t afford cars, and houses are out of reach. What this population white paper ultimately highlights and what it will be remembered for, is how out of touch the PAP government has become with ordinary Singaporeans.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the motion, and urge the DPM to take this white paper back to the drawing board but only after the views of ordinary Singaporeans are prominently represented in it. But before that, I would like to present some perspectives for the government to consider as it ruminates over the overwhelmingly negative public feedback on this white paper.
The government has already admitted that it did not plan ahead to prepare infrastructure for a larger population. As we have 5.3 million people on our island home today, the government should make clear how many more MRT lines, hospital beds and housing units, amongst other indicators have to come on-stream to bring infrastructure in line with – our current population size. This will give Singaporeans a better idea and feel of the future, and what the PAP government means by a high quality of living in 2030, and what Singapore will be like with another 1.6 million people.
A critical plank of the white paper deals with raising our TFR. But in this regard the white paper has not gone far enough to ask why Singaporeans are having fewer children. Madam Speaker, in my view, a large part of this is down a compendium of factors linked to our work culture, cost of living especially for the low and middle-income, and the sense of reducing physical space in Singapore. In the final reckoning, there are a confluence of factors, but rather than just look at more paternity leave and financial incentives, the white paper was an opportunity for the government to bite the bullet and introduce far reaching changes to address our TFR problem for the long-run.
Like both the property cooling measures which is in its seventh instalment with no moderation of prices in sight, and the marriage and parenthood package which is now into its fourth instalment, I am sceptical about the likely effects of these policy changes as they are not radical enough and do not address the root causes of our low TFR.
What the government should do is to table a comprehensive white paper on increasing our TFR with a corollary plan on getting our non-working population into the workforce. Instead, by introducing a narrow set of measures, the government has gone for a half-hearted approach, one that ultimately threatens a self-fulfilling prophecy. A less than vigorous attempt at raising TFR like what is currently presented in the white paper will lead the government to open the tap to immigration, on the grounds that measures to raise TFR have failed.
In Tuesday’s Straits Times, there was a piece about some Punggol residents fighting to save a small knoll from development. Last month, another group of residents in Pasir Ris were fighting to save a wooded area two football fields in size from being chopped down for the construction of an international school. Think about it, not a big cemetery like Bukit Brown or the railway corridor, but we are now talking of small knolls and football fields. And this sort of bottom-up citizen driven campaigns are already taking place with 5.3m population size.
Singapore is already a very small place. Ordinary Singaporeans have seen their flats shrink over the years. Now their public spaces for recreation and more importantly, rejuvenation, will also shrink whatever promises are made about the quality of life. There is a heart-warming picture of a family having a picnic on page 17 of the white paper. I wonder how the family will come to the beach in 2030, picnic basket and a happy family in tow. Did they take the MRT? Perhaps some will. Whatever the case, I hope they don’t choose to go to the beach over the weekend for it is simply too crowded today. Be that as it may, it is an inescapable reality that if one has a big family, one needs a car or some form of transport in Singapore – to bring to kids to and from childcare, to take them out over the weekends, to meet their extended family, and for little excursions around the island. The MND Minister has come out to say that cycling should be encouraged. But it still does not change the fact that most families need a vehicle. It is my belief that the quality of life that is outlined in the white paper with 6.5-6.9 million Singaporeans will not deliver the high quality of life promised.
A regional mall in Seletar, Tampines North or Tengah will probably look exactly like Tampines Mall and Jurong Point, including the brands on show. Housing estates are also likely to be crammed in line with the higher plot ratios in newer HDB estates, and yes, the rooms in our flats will continue to be small – on this account, I would like to ask if the government had factored in the future size of our flats in this white paper, as any increases are likely to go some way to creating a better sense of home and promoting larger families especially since the justification for smaller flats has been smaller families.
Another central plank of a relook at the government’s TFR strategies should have been the workplace. It is a known-fact that culturally, many Singaporeans work late hours, effectively ridiculing the notion of an 8-hour workday. Shirley Sun, an academic at NTU in a 2013 publication titled Population Policy and Reproduction in Singapore: Making Future Citizens, opined that “encouraging childbirth among citizens is not solely a matter of providing economic resources or parental leave from work but in the construction of ideal citizens, and that if “individual competitiveness” reigns, particularly in the face of scarce resources, parents and prospective parents are likely to limit childbearing.”
Employers and middle-managers, being businessmen and careerists, are unlikely to have an overriding reason to ask their staff to go home on time. Far from becoming productive, these employees, in the national schema, are singularly unproductive, spending time that could have been better spent with family. I know of many in various professions who fear they will receive an adverse grade if they leave before the boss. Numerous calls have been made for work-life balance but the work culture remains a problem and the softly-softly approach of the government will not make much headway. Private employees are bound by shareholders and the structural reality of unlocking shareholder value making the call for work-life balance in Singapore a shallow one. It’s time for the government to step in aggressively. Lets consider going back to basics – would the government consider legislating the 8 hour workday after which an employer is expected to pay OT across all professions, and not just limited to those earning below $4500 as under the Employment Act currently?
It is a radical proposal, deserves deeper study for sure, but it is the sort of radical thinking insofar as employer and employee attitudes at the workplace that the government should be proposing, to raise the quality of life of Singaporeans with a view to boost TFR rates aggressively. Along with more productivity incentives and wage and rental grants for companies especially SMEs and exempt private companies that hire Singaporean workers, we need to think out of the box to ensure that Singaporeans do not end up becoming a minority in their own country of birth.
There will be those who ask where the money for more productivity incentives and measures to help SMEs etc. will come from. In light of the existential challenge ahead of us, we should not rule out a deliberate and planned drawn-down of our reserves. Madam Speaker, the rainy day is upon us and we need to really address the TFR problem far more aggressively than we have ever done before especially since our future of the Singapore, as we know it, is on the line.
This brings me to the point about how successful the government has been so far at integrating new citizens. On this account, the jury is still out but Singaporeans remain uncomfortable at the thought of more foreigners coming on board even as new citizens slowly integrate into our society. This slow pace of integration should not come as a surprise to anyone. It’s is not the fault of Singaporeans or new citizens. Integration takes time and if we have not been able to do it over the last 20 years with our population rising from 3 to 5 million, it inevitable that this government will only increase the insecurity to Singaporeans if it proceeds with the population projection numbers set out in this white paper.
Some months ago, DPM Tharman noted that the government could be more transparent about how it approves PR applications. This would be of great benefit as Singaporeans would be able to understand who our neighbours are, where are they from and on what basis they were selected – akin to the transparency standards of immigrant friendly countries like Australia and Canada. Again, this was another odd omission from the White Paper, even though a DPM no less spoke of the need for greater transparency on the selection criterion for PRs.
Probably the most obvious proof of the how underwhelming the white paper has been was highlighted on page 28. While mention was made of communication in a common language to better ingrate new arrivals, no real direction was made to ensure new immigrants can effectively communicate in English, even though this feedback has been repeatedly put to the government in light of our previously liberal immigration policy. A very telling sentence stated that there are ample opportunities for these wishing to learn English, such as through courses run by, PA and NTUC. Why not encourage the economically inactive like the former teachers in our population to teach English and get them in the workforce, with the appropriate regulatory standards in place? Surely the government can take the lead in and encourage greater labour force participation through simple initiatives that promote private sector business participation instead of relying on quasi-government entities.
Where the white paper and the land use paper have been sorely lacking has been in academic rigour on quality of life indicia. Over the years, many advances have been made in this field of social science.
Madam Speaker, I refer to a 2013 publication by two Singaporean academics at the NUS Business School, Siok Kuan Tambyah and Tan Soo Jiuan titled Happiness and Wellbeing: The Singaporean Experience. Their research covers a large scale survey of 1500 citizens conducted between May and June 2011 that provides insights into Singaporeans’ satisfaction with life and living in Singapore, happiness, enjoyment, achievement, emotional wellbeing, psychological flourishing, economic wellbeing, overall wellbeing, personal values, spirituality, value orientations, national identity, rights, and the role of government. The survey also dovetails with similar work done in 1996 and 2001 and is part of a field of study known as subjective wellbeing research, which focuses on measuring an individual’s cognitive and affective reaction to his or her while life as well as to specific domains of life.
Their 2011 survey showed that Singaporeans were generally satisfied with their lives in general, but less so with living in Singapore. In the words of the authors, Singaporeans had achieved quite a lot but Singaporeans did not necessarily feel happier or enjoyed life more. Apart from calling for a more inclusive growth model, the future Singapore would be one where its citizens feel that they have a stake in and where their voices are heard and appreciated. There should have been a big section in the white paper for such details and in the accompanying land use paper – these omissions are stark and incongruous especially since the government promises a high quality of life going forward.
Derek Bok, the long-time President of Harvard University wrote a seminal book in 2010 titled the Politics of Happiness: What Government can learn from the new research on well-being and happiness. He too identifies the evolution of social science research and the doubts researchers have raised about the value of growth and how it should not necessarily override other aspects of life that can contribute importantly to well-being. He calls on government officials to draw upon new research to rethink priorities and make a more balanced effort to promote wellbeing. How is this to be done? Bok identifies strengthening the family and marriage, encouraging active forms of leisure, cushioning the shock of unemployment, universal health care and a more secure retirement, improvements in child care and pre-school education, treatment of mental illnesses, focus of education policy and other broader goals. Such a progressive approach, in line with raising the quality of life as defined in the land use supplement to the white paper is sorely missing.
Madam Speaker, we have heard many local and foreign business federations and chambers of commerce raise their objections to the white paper. This should not be surprising. Companies are answerable to shareholders, not the people of Singapore. But the white paper needs to take views of Singaporeans first and get that aspect of the equation right. The Workers’ Party is ultimately answerable to the people of Singapore first.
Nimble businesses and intelligent business folk will adjust and restructure businesses taking into advantage of the workforce that is currently unemployed, especially since the government has announced the foreign worker tightening strategies for some time already. Some companies may well relocate to Iskandar, but isn’t that what the Government has been subtly encouraging?
Far from throwing SMEs under the bus with our proposal, we envisage the government significantly reducing the prospects of unpredictability for SMEs with our proposals, not just with productivity and tax incentives, but also with rental grants, and other costs indicia that severely affect SMEs. But industries like construction need to appreciate that the old days of massive foreign labour influx are well and truly over. They have to make do with what they have, and Singaporeans must accept a slower pace of construction as a result. Some businesses may well be spooked by the prospects of this, but this is one bullet we are better off biting now because of our strong fiscal position. When the bosses of these SMEs appreciate that the Singapore of the future will be a more sustainable one, they would have understood this turn was one that we have to negotiate as a country, in spite of the turbulence it causes. We will stand with SMEs by pressing the government to do more for them especially on rentals, so they can devote more resources to productivity.
Madam Speaker, this white paper has jarred the average Singaporean. So it should be no surprise that a backbencher has introduced an amendment to the motion and a Minister has endorsed the same. But the amendment still does not alter the substance of the white paper and the lacuna therein. Given the urgency of the issue, the white paper needs to be reworked with more aggressive measures to raise TFR as a start and it has to be populated with more detail about the quality of life of Singaporeans should anticipate with the projected figure is reached. The public cynicism surrounding the white paper remains high – it is an emotion the government cannot afford to ignore to achieve a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.
Thank you.

---

(06-02-2013, 09:18 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote:

(06-02-2013, 09:02 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: I vote Inderjit Singh for Home Affairs Minister!

Call me cynical, but I even went so far as to suspect that the PAP may have "planted" certain people to say certain things, all in the name of a "healthy debate".

Or perhaps I am simply too cynical after living on this little red dot for so long!

Inderjit was famous for questioning the govie of the growth at all cost policy in 2008. Too bad he was surrounded by 84 other white shirts too scared to speak up.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/s...80/1/.html

The white paper is as good as a toilet paper now.
After inderjit singh's speech, khaw speech's pales in comparison.

The problem with the white paper is that the future population policy is intermingled with the future infrastructure policy.
Just separate the two issues.
But, it is a no-no to lump the two together and approve it.

SPEECH BY MINISTER FOR NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MR KHAW BOON WAN AT THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON THE POPULATION WHITE PAPER,
6 FEBRUARY 2013


“Cities can be great, given good planning and infrastructure”


1. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion, standing in the name of DPM Teo, and further enhanced by Mr Liang Eng Hwa through his proposed amendments.

2. Last week, a friend of mine who buys 4D regularly told me that the number “6569” was hot. Or in Hokkien, “ang ji” (红字), “red hot”. I asked her, “Why?” She said, “Don’t you know, Government says 6.5 to 6.9 million people in 2030.” That is how she has crystallised the two heavy documents into one number!

3. But she is not alone. But at least, she took the news in a light-hearted way. Many Singaporeans have not taken it so calmly. Many MPs have conveyed their strong sentiments. Singaporeans are upset. We know. Then why are we moving such an unpopular debate? Indeed, why is the Government, well aware that Singaporeans are already upset with the over-crowdedness, still insisting on planning for a growing population?

4. DPM Teo has explained why. Basically, we have a severe crisis heading our way. Our Singapore population is ageing rapidly and our labour force will soon shrink. If nothing is done, there will be less job opportunities for our young and not enough healthcare workers for our old. That is the crisis that will confront us in the next 10 to 15 years, which is not far away - two or three terms of government, that is all. We cannot avoid it but we can mitigate it, if we do something about it now. If we sweep the problem under the carpet and wish it away, it will not. It will still be there and only become more serious and may become insoluble.

5. This is not a theoretical construct. This demographic crisis is confronting many countries and Japan is a live example because it is ageing the fastest. And as noted by a member, Singapore is ageing even faster than Japan. Those of you who have visited Japan have seen it with your own eyes. It may not be visible in Tokyo, but the signs of a shrinking, ageing society are everywhere outside of the cities. Tokyo is still growing because the young Japanese are migrating from their villages in search of opportunities. But Singapore is not like Japan because our city is our entire country. Lack of opportunities in Singapore means our young must go overseas to look for them. This will not be good for the young. This will not be good for the old when they have to age at home alone. An ageing and shrinking population cannot be the backdrop of our future. Instead, our future must be a picture of continuing dynamism and opportunities, with fresh ideas, new blood and global relevance. And our seniors happy and well-engaged.

6. The choices and approach we make today to address this crisis will shape the future of all our children. It is precisely because this is such a grave issue that we need to discuss it openly, frankly and rationally. Yes, it is a highly emotional issue. But it is important that we use both our heart and our head. It would be irresponsible of us otherwise. This is why we have tabled the Papers, so that we can have a full and open debate to keep our people informed and hear diverse views.

7. We are alive to the present unhappiness over the crowdedness in Singapore, especially in transport and housing. The congestion we experience today is real. DPM Teo has explained the circumstances leading to this situation. We are not happy with the status quo. We are resolute in addressing these concerns. But we must also learn from this and be clear about the need to plan and to build ahead of demand, so that we will not be caught again with another infrastructure crunch like this one.

Relieving the Strains
8. We are making progress in relieving the strains we feel today. Transport Minister Lui Tuck Yew spoke about transport yesterday. Let me talk about housing.

9. As I speak, around 200,000 homes are being built. They will be ready during the next 4 years. 197,559 new homes by 2016. I think my 4D friends will know what numbers to buy. That is not all. We will continue to launch more BTO flats, ECs and land sales for private condos, for as long as demand remains strong. There is enough land for such new homes to be built. Within the next few years, new areas at Punggol North, Tampines North and Bidadari will be available for new public housing.

10. To complete the ramped up construction programme, I do need more construction workers, more than currently available. And that is why I was shocked when I heard WP’s recommendation yesterday: that we freeze the foreign worker population, immediately and for 8 years. That is throwing a spanner in my building plan. My housing plan will be badly affected! I will not be able to deliver the new flats as promised to 200,000 families. On behalf of these families, I ask the Workers’ Party to rethink its idea and approach. They are our people too, Singaporeans. Many people need to move house, set up families and have babies. Please do not disrupt the plan.

Enough Flats for All
11. Anyway, I have ramped up BTO supply to about 25,000 flats per year. That is a lot of flats. New Singaporean family formations do not exceed 15,000 per year. I am into year 3 of this ramped up HDB programme. Statistically, we have cleared the backlog of first-timers.

12. While there are still many BTO applicants, most of them are not yet married. They are applying under the Fiancé-Fiancée scheme. As flat allocation is conducted through balloting, some married couples do lose out to the not yet married couples. That is why we introduced the Parenthood Priority Scheme to put the first-timer married couples ahead, starting with those with children. Once we clear the backlog, we can extend the scheme to the married couples without children. Parenthood Priority Scheme can morph into Pre-Parenthood Priority Scheme. The acronym is still PPS. This will affect the not-yet married couples, but not too much because of the large number of new flats to be launched.

13. In short, young Singaporeans, you do not have to worry. There are enough flats for everyone and you will not have to wait too long. And once the current backlog is cleared, we will start to build up a meaningful stock of unsold HDB flats to meet the needs of couples who may need housing urgently.

Affordable Homes for All
14. But I know Singaporeans remain anxious about prices. They see the prices of resale flats continuing to rise, and as BTO prices are pegged to resale prices, they worry about affordability. Again, don’t worry. I have suspended the practice of pegging BTO flats to resale prices. And that is how we have stabilised the BTO prices – increasing the Government subsidy when resale prices rise, instead of following the resale prices up.

15. Let’s look at last week’s BTO launch. A 3-room flat in Choa Chu Kang costs an average of $160,000; a 4-room flat at $260,000; and a 5-room flat at $340,000. These prices were similar to the earlier BTO launches in Choa Chu Kang a year ago. Prices are not identical – so it is not a straight horizontal line – as every BTO launch is unique, with some local differences. But by and large, we have kept the BTO prices steady, even though the resale prices had risen. Similar observations can be made in other non-mature estates.

16. I will continue this pricing practice until the resale market stabilises. In addition, we have implemented several rounds of property cooling measures. We are determined to tame the property market, especially the HDB resale market. We think the recent cooling measures will make an impact. If necessary, we will do more.

Enough Land for Long Term Needs
17. For the longer term, we have reserved sufficient land to develop another half a million housing units. If fully realised, this will increase our housing stock today at a proportion nearly double the projected population growth. This is a “kiasu” approach, to give us plenty of buffer. We may not need to build as many units as projected but we can take comfort from our planners’ assurance that we will have more than enough land to build new homes for all Singaporeans, and to keep housing affordable.

High Quality of Life
18. Another concern of Singaporeans is their quality of life. With increasing density, will our quality of life get worse? This is a very important and totally valid concern.

19. We have always taken pride in our high quality of life. Singaporeans travel and you have seen how other people live, in Hong Kong, in Shenzhen, in Tokyo, in Shanghai. Singaporeans know that we are a little red dot, with no mountains and lakes, but we still get to enjoy the lush greenery, the clean air, the blue sky, and our HDB flats are superior to most of the apartments in Hong Kong, Tokyo or New York. We will not let our quality of life go down. On the contrary, we want to continue to be able to raise our quality of life. We are confident we can achieve this.

20. First, we have the advantage of starting from a strong foundation. By most measures, Singapore is more liveable than many other cities with lower population densities. From the time that Mr Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore, our policies have always focused on good planning to ensure liveability. We take this as key to Singapore’s survival as a city-state.

21. With better resources and deeper experience, we can do even better than today to ensure Singapore remains highly liveable.

22. Second, we are determined to make Singapore a City in a Garden. What does that mean? It is to bring nature into our urban spaces. It is to create oases of calm and peace for us to enjoy and relax in. We have made access to green and blue spaces a top priority. Within this decade, our park connectors will double in length to 360km, as we progressively develop the Round Island Route. As you know, I’ve been cycling because I wanted to cover the entire park connector because it is under my ministry. My interest was not for leisure; my interest was to look out for little gaps in-between because I want the park connector to be a truly seamless, good and pleasant experience. It is not quite so yet for many of the routes. By now, I have cycled about half of the 180km and there are some routes, where, as I’ve said before, they are really "terok" – you have to carry the bicycle and cross the highway and so on and so forth. It’s very troublesome but we will improve on that. By 2030, at least 85% of all residents will find a park within 400m of their homes. Where possible, we will infuse our tall buildings with lush vertical and rooftop greenery.

23. Despite urbanisation, Singapore will remain rich in biodiversity. Apart from our parks, we have conserved a significant and representative part of our native biodiversity. However, we cannot protect every local green area. Some are slated for development and, in time, will need to give way to other uses. It is painful, I know, for the local residents. Actually it is more painful for us in MND. We seek your understanding. Overall, we will maintain about 9% of our land for parks and nature reserves. This is highly significant for a small urbanised city.

24. Both natural and built heritage are important to us. That is why we will continue to retain buildings and structures which are of significant historical, cultural and architectural merits wherever possible, even as we develop.

25. Third, we can justifiably take pride in our public housing programme. It is the truly best in the world and we intend to keep it that way because the vast majority of Singaporeans live in HDB towns. The next generation of public housing will be even more comfortable and better designed. When you have the time, do take a walk – I’ll be happy to organise it and accompany you – through the HDB precincts in Punggol South, and see for yourself how we have carefully planned, designed and integrated the common areas, the greenery, open spaces and recreational facilities. The common green area in each precinct is centrally placed, at the foot of HDB blocks, so that residents can have wonderful views and direct access to the greenery. They are designed to keep cars away so that it is pleasant and safe for residents of all ages to enjoy. This common green is supplemented by gardens and gathering spaces on the rooftops of the multi-storey car parks. These pleasant outcomes are achieved, despite a higher population density.

26. We have received many visitors and they are all impressed. They are especially struck by the playgrounds and the children playing happily there. That is the real test – are children happy there? And there are many. The green areas, the playgrounds, the fitness corners, and the seniors’ activity corners are always bustling with activities at their respective peak hours. These features are further complemented by the beautiful Punggol Waterway.

27. What is our future? It is not to be a concrete jungle. It is to be a City in a Garden. It is to be Punggol - multiply that many times. And the best is yet to be. HDB has completed the preliminary planning of Punggol North. The models and the plans have been in HDB Hub for several months now for public viewing. They have been very well received by both experts, architects, and laymen. I have received many emails from architects, city planners – Singaporeans architects - who tell me how impressed they are with the Punggol North plans. The planners are now working on Tampines North, Bidadari and Tengah, which will incorporate fresh ideas for better living. They will be awesome.

28. Let me add that these new plans are not to make HDB flats more luxurious. HDB flats will always be cost effective to build and maintain. That is our key design brief. But we are improving the estate layout, the common spaces, the air flow, the height relationship between buildings, the landscaping, the greenery, and the connectivity between spaces. In particular, the layouts must promote greater community interactions. In Our Singapore Conversation, many Singaporeans have spoken about the good old days, about our past kampong spirit and they wish that the kampong spirit can be rekindled. I totally agree and I will do my best to support that wish. We have moved from third world kampong to first world apartment living, but we should never lose our good old kampong spirit, of caring for one another and watching out for one another. We will create as many communal spaces as possible for our residents to meet and interact. And of course, we will also support interest groups, such as those interested in community gardening and urban farming.

29. We will also actively involve the local residents in the planning. As one recent example, Tampines is planning its Tampines Town Hub. The People’s Association is taking the lead in this development. Over six months, it carried out extensive consultations, discussions, focus groups with 15,000 residents where they shared their hopes and ideas for the Town Hub. Some of the suggestions are included in the final design by the architects. This is the right approach.

30. Fourth, we have learnt a valuable lesson from our infrastructure problems today. It is an important reminder for all of us to plan ahead and invest in the infrastructure in a coordinated and timely manner. We will do our best not to allow population to surge ahead of our infrastructure again. What we must do is to build infrastructure ahead of demand, and where possible, we will also build in a buffer so that we can respond to unexpected needs. This is a major shift in planning and development strategy, to invest ahead of demand. It will be more costly.

31. Public transport, especially trains, is a big ticket item, requiring multibillion dollar investments and taking years to build. For a new town to be liveable, we need the trains and buses to be readily available. But it is not just buses and trains, we also want hawker centres, supermarkets, playgrounds, clinics, childcare centres, schools, parks, barber shops, etc to be available to serve our residents soon after they move in to their HDB flats. Physical facilities we can build. That’s easy but getting the service providers and merchants to start their business from day one, that is more difficult. We will try to incentivise them to do so.

Planning For Stretched Scenario
32. The current mismatch in infrastructure provision and overcrowding has been painful for Singaporeans and for the planners. We were caught wrong-footed and we caused Singaporeans much discomfort. That is why this time round, we have to plan infrastructure based on the stretched scenario of 6.9 million. We hope we never reach this level. However for long term planning, I think it is safer to prepare enough land and infrastructure for a larger number.

33. After my open heart bypass operation, my cardiologist requires me to biannual heart stress tests on the treadmill. My resting pulse rate is 68 beats a minute. For my daily exercise, I work my heart up to 125 beats a minute and sustain it for at least 15 minutes. This should keep my heart in good condition. But for the biannual stress test, the doctor requires me to pump my heart to 165 beats per minute. This is way above my exercise pulse rate of 125. It enables the doctor to check how my heart functions at a heightened stress level. If my heart works well under that heightened condition, it should be OK for normal activities.

34. This is the same approach with infrastructure planning. We need to stress test our long term infrastructure plan to ensure that it will be robust.

Planning for Unknown Unknowns
35. Frankly speaking, nobody can tell what the world will be like beyond 2020, let alone 2030. Though we cannot be sure how the future will be like, we can create options for our future generation. Then they can decide what they want to do with the options, to create the kind of society that they want to do with the options. Creating more space will provide them with such options.

36. Many agencies are working to create such options. They include reclamation of new areas and recycling of existing land for other uses. For example, after we decant the port facilities at Tanjong Pagar, Pulau Brani, Keppel and Pasir Panjang to Tuas, we will free up large tracts of waterfront land near the city - the Southern Waterfront City. This will allow us to create yet another growth corridor, even bigger than the Marina Bay District. This will further expand our city centre and free up valuable space there for housing, offices and jobs. The Marina Bay district, which everyone can see now, is the eastern extension of our CBD. And the development is far from complete, probably only halfway there. But you can already see the transformative effect on our city, on our downtown, and on Singapore. The southern waterfront will be the western extension of the CBD. So the CBD, eastern wing, western wing together will offer a bigger scope, much more than Marina Bay. This is an exciting option beyond 2030 and it is totally within our grasp. What I do not know is whether I will live to see it completed, but I take comfort to be able to make my little contribution to creating this option for our future generation of Singaporeans.

37. Our long term options include expanding our underground space and the uses within. Some of these options are still costly. But there will be technology breakthroughs in the next few decades.

38. As a first step, we will carry out a geological survey to understand better our underground rocks and their suitability for uses such as utilities, warehousing and laboratories. Recently, I visited the Jurong Rock Caverns. At 130 metres below sea level, it provides storage for liquid hydrocarbons, and frees up valuable land above ground. But what else can we do underground?

39. I am chairing an inter-ministerial committee to study and coordinate underground developments, to ensure that we can seize opportunities and create the most optimal outcome for Singaporeans.

Planning for Singaporeans
40. Madam Speaker, two substantial documents are being debated in Parliament. Many pages, many statistics, but they are not about numbers. They are all about us, our future and our quality of life. In the next phase of our development, we are striving for quality: quality living environment, quality work-life. However, we must always remember that Singapore being a country in a city informs every aspect of our planning. We have to be a thriving city in order to be a country for our people – a home where our children can have a bright future.

41. We are maturing as a people and as a society. Having met the basic needs, our people are rightly yearning for more meaningful life, a better work-life balance, a smarter working life with quality time for family, friends, leisure, arts and sports.

42. Our parents and my generation slogged hard because we were poor and we wanted a better life for our children. We had no work-life balance. We still don’t. In fact, we did not even know of such a concept then. We were prepared to make the sacrifice so that our children can have a better life.

43. That is why we plan long term, try to anticipate future problems and try to nip them in the bud. That is why we put out these two reports, because we know if our demographic challenges are not dealt with properly, our children will suffer. We cannot simply pretend these challenges do not exist. We cannot simply pass them to future generations to deal with. I think that will be irresponsible, and that is not our style.

44. This Government is and will always be on the side of Singaporeans. The scenarios sketched in the Population White Paper are not blindly pro-business or pro-growth. It is you – Singaporeans – who are at the centre of our planning and policies: your well being, your security, the quality of your lives. People first, not growth first – that is the key thread which runs consistently through the Population White Paper and the Land Use Plan. Please read them closely and see for yourself.

. . . . .

Yes! i am too. i think many working class among us are cynical too?
Why?
Simply this group of Papys have been fattening themselves so much from the masses's "blood, sweat and tears" for more then 20 to 30 years that they don't have the heart for or can't feel how the masses live their lives everyday.
Some of us even think some Papys and families have accumulated so much money (multi - million $ pay/bonuses for years & years) that they & families can just move to another country and live "happily" ever after for maybe more than 3 generations down the line. Some people even think for 6 to 10 generations for L&L's families.
So? What's your problem? It's not mine(PAPY's) O. K.
It's Sink aporeans's problems.
May GOD still wants to bless them.