Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

[d.o.g.]

Mr Teo added that if Singapore can raise its birth rate, then fewer immigrants are needed.

This is obvious. But has the government done enough to raise the birth rate?

For example, as more Singaporeans take up professional jobs, there is a need for foreign workers to take on the lower-skilled jobs, said Mr Teo.

I have a different view.

The Singaporeans who clean tables at hawker centres and deliver McDonald's meals are in no position to take up "professional jobs" in private banking or IT services. All the foreign workers do when they show up is to depress wages for these lower-skilled Singaporeans.

For jobs like call centres, yes they can be outsourced. But tell me, how do you outsource your local cleaner and dispatch rider? You can't, which means that bringing in foreign workers makes no sense at all.

Do you think the cleaner and dispatch rider don't want to "upgrade" themselves and make more money? Sure, some are happy where they are. But the majority would upgrade themselves to earn more if they could. Our dear ministers need to understand that not everyone is going to be a first-class honours graduate with a straight career path from management trainee to CEO (or MP) in 15 years. Many people cannot make it to university at all.

=======
The job of the government is to make sure that EVERYONE in Singapore has the chance to make a decent living. Not import foreigners to depress wages and then tell the Singaporeans in these jobs that "too bad this is globalization, deal with it".

Fundamentally we have to understand that cost and income are 2 sides of the same coin. If we want Singaporeans' wages to go up, Singaporeans' cost of living must also go up. Your income is someone else's cost. Your costs are someone else's income. The only way you can have high income and low costs is if someone else is being underpaid. For the past 2 decades that someone has been the lower-skilled Singaporeans, who have seen their lot get from bad to worse.

Once upon a time those suffering were mainly those in the service industries like cleaning, hawkers, shop assistants etc. Many people felt that with an education they could avoid these jobs and their poor wages. So they were happy to vote for globalization since they were net beneficiaries. But now even the middle class is feeling it, as foreigners increasingly compete for "normal" white-collar jobs like nursing, IT support etc. And so as their interests are threatened, the middle class - who form the bulk of the population - are rebelling.

Is there a solution? I personally think so.

First, jobs that cannot be outsourced should be closed to foreigners. Costs will go up, which will force business productivity to go up. Those who can't raise productivity will close and free up workers for businesses that can. The result is that locals' wages in these sectors will go up. Presto - we have eliminated one segment of the working poor - because now they get a living wage. When these foreigners go home it will also relieve pressure on the housing and public transport infrastructure.

Second, jobs that CAN be outsourced should be opened up. These are jobs that will leave anyway if Singapore is not competitive. So things like call centres, remote medical diagnosis (of X-rays etc), chip design etc should have no quota on foreigners. If, after having 100% foreigners, the business can't hack it, it will leave anyway.

Third, a mindset change among Singaporeans. Instead of a me-versus-you mentality and complaining about the cost of food and transport, recognize that we have had it too cheap for too long and that it is time to get back to reality. Ultimately, when the people we pay earn more, they in turn will spend more and contribute to OUR income. Only when money circulates can an economy grow. I think a public campaign here, featuring Singaporean cleaners, bus drivers, hawkers, shop assistants etc, would be more worthwhile than yet another courtesy campaign.

Can we do all this overnight? No. But then, the PAP prides itself on planning decades ahead, does it not? So what is it waiting for, 2016?

[pianist]

If Swedish PM Takes Public Transport to Work and London Mayor Rides Bike to Work....
our Mini-stars shall be able to do the same Once they are doing that they will have better understanding of all proiblems ordinary S'poreans are facing before talking about fancy 2030 blueprint

german finance minister also ride bike

Look, Danish Ministers ride the bike to Meetings...

http://eu2012.dk/en/NewsList/Maj/Uge-19/Pink-bikes

[cfa]

Mr Teo added that if Singapore can raise its birth rate, then fewer immigrants are needed.

This is obvious. But has the government done enough to raise the birth rate?

For example, as more Singaporeans take up professional jobs, there is a need for foreign workers to take on the lower-skilled jobs, said Mr Teo.

I have a different view.

The Singaporeans who clean tables at hawker centres and deliver McDonald's meals are in no position to take up "professional jobs" in private banking or IT services. All the foreign workers do when they show up is to depress wages for these lower-skilled Singaporeans.

For jobs like call centres, yes they can be outsourced. But tell me, how do you outsource your local cleaner and dispatch rider? You can't, which means that bringing in foreign workers makes no sense at all.

Do you think the cleaner and dispatch rider don't want to "upgrade" themselves and make more money? Sure, some are happy where they are. But the majority would upgrade themselves to earn more if they could. Our dear ministers need to understand that not everyone is going to be a first-class honours graduate with a straight career path from management trainee to CEO (or MP) in 15 years. Many people cannot make it to university at all.

=======
The job of the government is to make sure that EVERYONE in Singapore has the chance to make a decent living. Not import foreigners to depress wages and then tell the Singaporeans in these jobs that "too bad this is globalization, deal with it".

Fundamentally we have to understand that cost and income are 2 sides of the same coin. If we want Singaporeans' wages to go up, Singaporeans' cost of living must also go up. Your income is someone else's cost. Your costs are someone else's income. The only way you can have high income and low costs is if someone else is being underpaid. For the past 2 decades that someone has been the lower-skilled Singaporeans, who have seen their lot get from bad to worse.

Once upon a time those suffering were mainly those in the service industries like cleaning, hawkers, shop assistants etc. Many people felt that with an education they could avoid these jobs and their poor wages. So they were happy to vote for globalization since they were net beneficiaries. But now even the middle class is feeling it, as foreigners increasingly compete for "normal" white-collar jobs like nursing, IT support etc. And so as their interests are threatened, the middle class - who form the bulk of the population - are rebelling.

Is there a solution? I personally think so.

First, jobs that cannot be outsourced should be closed to foreigners. Costs will go up, which will force business productivity to go up. Those who can't raise productivity will close and free up workers for businesses that can. The result is that locals' wages in these sectors will go up. Presto - we have eliminated one segment of the working poor - because now they get a living wage. When these foreigners go home it will also relieve pressure on the housing and public transport infrastructure.

Second, jobs that CAN be outsourced should be opened up. These are jobs that will leave anyway if Singapore is not competitive. So things like call centres, remote medical diagnosis (of X-rays etc), chip design etc should have no quota on foreigners. If, after having 100% foreigners, the business can't hack it, it will leave anyway.

Third, a mindset change among Singaporeans. Instead of a me-versus-you mentality and complaining about the cost of food and transport, recognize that we have had it too cheap for too long and that it is time to get back to reality. Ultimately, when the people we pay earn more, they in turn will spend more and contribute to OUR income. Only when money circulates can an economy grow. I think a public campaign here, featuring Singaporean cleaners, bus drivers, hawkers, shop assistants etc, would be more worthwhile than yet another courtesy campaign.

Can we do all this overnight? No. But then, the PAP prides itself on planning decades ahead, does it not? So what is it waiting for, 2016?

They are only good at instant noodle solutions.

[thefarside]

Good article from ISEAS and thought provoking. It raises some very real and ongoing concerns about the "we vs them divide" that will intensify in the coming years.

If you read between the lines, there was also an indirect criticism that the govt has used up its bullets to shore up its prospects in Punggol East by election, and is now a sitting (or sinking) duck with a policy paper it cannot now defend with fresh ammo. Idiots, these people are.

Please do not requote entire article and repost if you reply to this post.

Singapore’s Population White Paper: Impending Integration Challenges
By Terence Chong

The Singapore’s government’s much awaited Population White Paper was finally released on 29 January 2013. Within it, two primary challenges are recognized which like pincers are closing in at an alarming rate. On the one hand, the country’s population is aging rapidly, while on the other, its total fertility rate (TFR) of 1.2 is one of the lowest in the world. This shrinking and simultaneously ageing tendency of the population not only heralds slower economic growth for the near future but also draws attention to some key concerns, such as the impending inability to meet the nation’s military and security needs.

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

In light of these stark recommendations, the White Paper’s introduction to the public needed to be a politically managed event. The government had long sought to impress upon Singaporeans in the lead up to its release, the gravity of the population situation and the difficult decisions in store.

But even best laid plans go awry. Initially scheduled for release at the end of 2012, the White Paper was held up by the Punggol East by-election. However, that did not only delayed its release, leaving reports from DBS Vickers of a possible figure of 7 million to circulate unchallenged, but also led to a curious situation where concrete government measures to address the population issue were unveiled even before the public knew what the relevant figures actually were.

For instance, during the election campaign, the government seized the opportunity to publicise several major policy initiatives. The enhanced Marriage and Parenthood package that included increased Baby Bonus; extended paternal leave to encourage more local births; the building of 200,000 new homes by 2016; and the slew of public transportation measures to ease overcrowding, were announced in the heat of the campaign to double up as national sweeteners for Punggol East voters.

For a brief surreal moment it was as if the medication was being prescribed before details of the ailment were made known. These measures, in the end, did not stop the drastic swing of 11 per cent of votes away from the incumbent party, and may now have only limited impact in assuaging public concerns about a future population of 6.9 million.

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

The first is the anxiety over national identity. According to the White Paper, “Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation. To have a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean core”. But with Singaporeans making up only 3.8 million of the projected 6.9 million, or half of the total population, it is uncertain if this core will be stable or not, or if it will even be identifiable.

While it may be true that identity and values are things that are constantly evolving, if 1 out of 2 people in Singapore is a foreigner, local identities and values will evolve at a rate so accelerated that it will cause strong anxiety and insecurity among core Singaporeans. The rate of incoming foreigners will be unprecedented, especially in relation to the island-state’s small population size. The proportion of citizens to foreigners may take the country past the tipping point where the idea of Singapore will grow increasingly ambiguous, and thus consign the nation-building project to a constant state of arrested development.

The integration process comprising only of state-sponsored institutions such as the People’s Association or interested individuals like Integration and Naturalisation Champions is also woefully inadequate. This is because there are already psychological forces at play that cause anxiety over immigrants. One of these is the worry over limited national resources. Consequently, the spectre of foreigners “out in force” in the property market “snapping up almost one in three new private homes in Singapore” only serves to fuel fears that Singaporeans will be increasingly priced out of dream homes.*1

At the mid to lower end level, citizens may grow more resentful of the variety of subsidies that Permanent Residents (PRs) enjoy in key areas such as health, housing and education. To complicate matters, the persistent perception that the Singapore government is parsimonious when it comes to welfare benefits may well strengthen the belief that foreigners have better access to the nation’s material resources than needy citizens. This sense of loss is especially exacerbated in Singaporeans who have expressed suspicions of discrimination by foreigners in hiring positions, who prefer to appoint candidates of their nationality or ethnicity.*2

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

While Singapore’s strict immigration laws and tight border controls may have reduced the presence of refugees and asylum seekers to almost nought, perceptions of immigrants as scroungers are perpetuated when immigrants from less developed countries such as China and India take up Singapore citizenship in order to facilitate their move to destinations that they had considered more attractive from the start. In other cases, local institutes of tertiary education may offer plum scholarships to PRC students to undergo their undergraduate or postgraduate courses, only to see many of these leaving for the US upon completion of their studies.

In March 2012, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean revealed that as many as 300 of the 1200 citizens who renounced their citizenship each year were actually new citizens.*3 According to Lee Kuan Yew, “Some use us as a stepping stone, take courses at our university, then they go off to US, where the streets are paved of gold, and some don’t come back”.*4

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

PAST AND FUTURE PATTERNS
While it is too early to speculate over the types of new citizens that will be inducted in the future, existing patterns are likely to remain. In other words, Chinese Malaysians will comprise the largest number of new citizens, with Chinese from China coming in second place. New citizens are likely to be in their twenties, thirties and forties, and in their economic prime. They are likely to have families, which would be in keeping with the government’s drive to stem the decline in TFR. New citizens are also likely to be better educated than local-born citizens.

According to the Department of Statistics, 69.7 per cent of ‘new citizens’
at present have post-secondary education, in comparison to 44.1 per cent of ‘existing citizens’.*5 How this greater influx of better educated new citizens will affect less-educated local-born citizens remains to be seen. It is likely that class envy will eventually take deeper root, accentuated by the differences in country of origin.

Another related issue is the requirement of state policy to maintain the ethnic balance in the country. The local Chinese population has a TFR rate of 1.08, the Indian population’s is 1.09, while the Malay population’s is 1.64.*6 While Chinese from Malaysia and China will augment the local Chinese population, and Indians from India the local Indian population, the local Malay population, despite its higher TFR, may decline proportionally given the low immigration rate from the region due to various sensitivities. This problem is bound to manifest itself in starker terms in the near future.

Finally, of the 6.9 million, it is estimated that 4.4 million will comprise the resident population, of which 3.8 million will be Singaporean citizens. This increase in PRs and new citizens will profoundly alter the residential landscape. One possible outcome is that PRs and new citizens who share the same country of origin may converge on certain residential areas to form exclusive communities and social networks. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is already happening with Indian nationals. New citizens who live in such exclusive communities may not necessarily share common experiences with ordinary Singaporeans and may have little incentive to integrate. Ties to their country of origin may continue to be strong.

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

* * * * * * * *
Terence Chong is an ISEAS Senior Fellow.

*1 The Straits Times. 19 Dec 2010. “More foreigners buying new private homes”. By Cheryl Lim; see also The
Straits Times. 25 May 2011. “Foreign home buyers hit record in Q1”. By Esther Teo
*2 The Straits Times. 1 March 2011. “Employment enclaves”. Forum Page. By Lauralle Ho; The Straits Times. 7 March 2011. “Yes, there are job enclaves”. Forum Page. By Rohim Kalil; The Straits Times. 7 March 2011. “Singaporeans shouldn’t be disadvantaged”. Forum Page. By Teoh Charn Hong
*3 Straits Times. 2 Mar 2012. “300 new citizens give up their status each year”.
*4 Straits Times. 23 Jan 2008. “It’s S’pore’s gain even if 30-40% of immigrants settle here: MM Lee”. By Li Xueying
*5 Department of Statistics. http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/...ef2011.pdf (accessed:17/07/2012)
*6 Occasional Paper. “Marriage and Parenthood Trends in Singapore”. June 2012. National Population and Talent Division: Singapore

[Temperament]

Ha! Ha!
It's easy for the PAPYs to take advantage of the lower class in society. But it's not so simple to keep on taking advantage of the middle class. When the middle class is squeezed into the lower class, somethings will gives. Besides, what happens to the lower class then? How are they struggling to live?
To me Papys has been talking cork for too long liu.

[thinknotleft]

d.o.g.

I disagree with your solution on excluding foreigners to jobs that cannot be outsourced.

You noted cost and productivity will go up. But it does not nec means productivity will go up by much. Say, nursing. To some extent, you will want the nurse-to-patient ratio to be kept at certain ratio. Certainly you do not want productivity to rise to 1 nurse to (say) 15 patients (if it is possble). Or hawker. There's a limit to how many plates of char kway tiao a hawker can serve.

If we totally exclude foreigners from those jobs that cannot be outsourced, we may experience
- large rises in cost of living (biz have no choice but to pass the cost of wages to us),
- wage inflation for all workers including PMET (all of us will want higher wages when cost of living increases.)
- possibly loss of competiveness (if you are a boss looking to open a factory, wage costs are always a consideration)
- more crowded trains and buses than now (definitely our children will not aspire to be bus or train captains, so no local bus/train captains = no train)

Interestingly and off-topic, there are other solutions (which have different losers) e.g.
- all landlords (esp the reits) cannot raise rentals by more than 1/4 of CPI annually. This will help to lower rental cost and hence lower cost of living.
- all HDB flats can only be re-sold to govt at price fixed by govt. Only govt can sell second-hand HDB to individuals. This may remove the high housing cost.
- extend the Workfare Income Suplement (WIS) to higher income groups, so that the lower middle class gets higher income. Also, increase income tax on upper-middle class and impose extra tax on dividends/rental income to pay for the WIS extension.

I think that the last solution has similar effects as your solution - just that the price inflation (in your solution) is translated into higher taxes. And the impact of the last solution is more direct. The lower middle class stand to benefit from higher pay without the price inflation (in your solution).

[d.o.g.]

If we totally exclude foreigners from those jobs that cannot be outsourced, we may experience
- large rises in cost of living (biz have no choice but to pass the cost of wages to us),
- wage inflation for all workers including PMET (all of us will want higher wages when cost of living increases.)
- possibly loss of competiveness (if you are a boss looking to open a factory, wage costs are always a consideration)
- more crowded trains and buses than now (definitely our children will not aspire to be bus or train captains, so no local bus/train captains = no train)

If we look at the actual cost of living, excluding childraisng there are a few key components:

housing
food
transport

The cost of housing has very little to do with wages and a lot to do with the cost of land. This is something the government can fix. HDB can sell at cost/cost-plus, that would bring down the cost of new flats. HDB can also sell a new category of flats that cannot be resold, only returned to the government for a pro-rated refund. This would create a category of housing that has no speculative element, and should be popular with those who only want a roof over their heads.

Food is actually a very small expense for most of us. The median wage in Singapore is just over $3k per month. But most of us can get by on $10-15 of food spending per day. This is 10-15% of income. Even if your food costs go up 30% the impact is 3-5% of income, it is definitely bearable.

Transport cost is large or small depending on whether you have a car or not. Without a car most people will spend less than $5 a day on public transport. For 20 working days, that's $100 a month or 3% of income. Even if fares went up 50% the impact is less than 2% of income, still bearable. With a car the cost is much higher, often $1,500 or more per month. This is mainly due to changes in the COE supply which is within the government's control.

So you see, increasing the wages of our hawkers and bus drivers by 50% will cumulatively impact the higher-earning group by less than 10% total. The lower-income, who will feel the impact more, are precisely the group who will have the higher incomes. So net-net I think Singapore wins, a small cost for the well-off is a large benefit for the poor.

As for the unattractiveness of driving buses, SBS admitted previously in the Straits Times that their problem with hiring locals was the poor base pay. When they changed the package so that the base pay was increased to $1,000 they had more applicants for the job.

We do not need to reach the extremes of the UK where schoolteachers quit to drive the Tube trains because the hours are shorter and the pay is better. But we can do a lot more for the bus and train drivers - they have dozens and even hundreds of lives in their hands, their pay does not reflect their responsibility at all.

And likewise our street sweepers and garbage collectors are not being paid fairly for their labour. How can people in these jobs, who are struggling to survive, be proud to be Singaporean? For a country to survive it cannot just be the elites who are proud to be citizens, even the poor and downtrodden must feel that it is "their" country.

If the general population feels that their country has become a "rich man's land" how can they be expected to support the government or do National Service? The first thing they will try to do is leave - and that is what many have done over the years. If you look at the CIA Factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications...2rank.html

Singapore has the 6th highest net migration rate in the world. On a per-capita basis, only Qatar, Zimbabwe, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United Arab Emirates had higher net migration rates. Singapore's net migration rate in 2012 was 15.62 per 1,000 persons. In other words, 1.5% of the population left last year.

If Singapore is truly "My Home" why is everyone trying to leave? And no prizes for guessing who leaves - it's the educated, the highly-skilled and highly-paid. Precisely the people that Singapore can ill afford to lose.

For reference, the net migration rankings (actual number per 1,000) of other nations/regions often compared to Singapore:

Australia #17 (5.93)
Hong Kong #25 (3.90)
USA #26 (3.62)
UK #29 (2.59)
Malaysia #135 (-0.37)
Indonesia #153 (-1.08)

Negative numbers represent net immigration.

As usual, YMMV.

[edragon]

The cost of housing has very little to do with wages and a lot to do with the cost of land. This is something the government can fix. HDB can sell at cost/cost-plus, that would bring down the cost of new flats. HDB can also sell a new category of flats that cannot be resold, only returned to the government for a pro-rated refund. This would create a category of housing that has no speculative element, and should be popular with those who only want a roof over their heads.

HDB housing is a lease. If there is no free market for transfer this lease then, the lease became a depreciating asset which no ones want. However to reinforce that HDB belongs to the individual lessee as an asset and lessee is freely to determine their ownership and market value makes HDB desirable as an investment asset and not just for housing needs.
Therefore for the sake of everyone, HDB housing will have the speculative element. If the element of speculation is taken out, then those remaining lease of 49 years (50% of 99-years lease) will be in trouble as most will sell it at a slight loss and get a 2nd HDB with brand new 99 years to start with.

[HitandRun]

Singapore has the 6th highest net migration rate in the world. On a per-capita basis, only Qatar, Zimbabwe, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United Arab Emirates had higher net migration rates. Singapore's net migration rate in 2012 was 15.62 per 1,000 persons. In other words, 1.5% of the population left last year.

If Singapore is truly "My Home" why is everyone trying to leave? And no prizes for guessing who leaves - it's the educated, the highly-skilled and highly-paid. Precisely the people that Singapore can ill afford to lose.

From the same source - This entry includes the figure for the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population). An excess of persons entering the country is referred to as net immigration (e.g., 3.56 migrants/1,000 population); an excess of persons leaving the country as net emigration (e.g., -9.26 migrants/1,000 population). The net migration rate indicates the contribution of migration to the overall level of population change. The net migration rate does not distinguish between economic migrants, refugees, and other types of migrants nor does it distinguish between lawful migrants and undocumented migrants.

[d.o.g.]

If the element of speculation is taken out, then those remaining lease of 49 years (50% of 99-years lease) will be in trouble as most will sell it at a slight loss and get a 2nd HDB with brand new 99 years to start with.

There won't be any trouble for the new category of non-resaleable flats, because the buyback price is set according to depreciation. So it doesn't matter how many people sell back to HDB, they all get back the same amount. Like what happens when you turn in your COE - you always get back the pro-rated amount, it doesn't matter if everyone else is doing the same.

And for pure "roof over your head" type of housing, a 99-year lease is not necessary. 60 years is plenty - you buy the flat at 30, raise kids for 25 years, then you have another 35 years to enjoy your flat, then you die. Few of us will live beyond 90. If you buy a flat with a shorter lease, it's cheaper. Simple as that.