A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore

Resumption of Debate on Question [4 February 2013],

"That this House endorses Paper Cmd 1 of 2013 on 'A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore' as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and Paper Misc 1 of 2013 on 'A High Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans' as the land use plan to support Singapore's future population.". – [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

Amendments proposed [5 February 2013] –

"(1) in line 3, to leave out 'population policy'; and

(2) at the end, to add 'projections; and supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking; and recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to:

(a) place priority on resolving current strains on the infrastructure, particularly in transport;

(b) plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand;

(c) ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans; and

(d) carry out medium term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.'." – (Mr Liang Eng Hwa).

Resumption of Debate on Question [5 February 2013], "That the words proposed to be left out be left out.".

Question again proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Before I proceed to call the first speaker, I just have two reminders for Members. First, please address all speeches to the Speaker and not to each other. Secondly, clarifications should be concise and should not be used as a basis for making speeches.

2.02 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: ( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg xx.] Mdm Speaker, first, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving a detailed explanation of our population policy for the next few decades. An ageing society has many worrisome issues. We should look at Russia and try not to follow its footsteps where the villages are empty and the elderly are left behind to look after themselves. Currently, we have 5.9 working adults to support one senior aged over 65 years old. The ratio is about six to one. If we maintain status quo , the ratio will fall to 2.1 by 2030, resulting in higher taxes and increasing the burden on the working population so as to provide enough welfare and assistance for the elderly.

Germany, for example, drafted a proposal which allows people above 25 years old to contribute a certain portion of their salary to fund the pensions and social welfare for the baby boomers. Singapore is the third fastest ageing population in the world. If we do not grow our population, we would become like Japan. With economic recession, higher taxes, and dwindling job opportunities, Japan, the fastest ageing country in the world, is paying the price for its "closed door" immigration policy. Some of their government and grassroots organisations have realised the negative effects of this closed-door policy. Now, they are trying to advocate welcoming immigrants through petition and open dialogues. Therefore, many countries are already considering relaxing the immigration policy to solve the population issues. We are a small nation. If we do not take immediate actions, if we do not have long-term plans, the consequences will be dire.

After the release of this White Paper, many people were puzzled and worried when they see the figure of 6.9 million. Therefore, I hope this debate can answer some of their questions.

Some people asked, if we increase the population to 6.9 million in 2030 through foreign immigration, then what will happen next? Do we need an even larger young workforce to support this 6.9 million? Do we have enough resources to maintain this population? Our land is limited and we cannot keep reclaiming.

Currently, we are facing challenges for everyday activities like taking public transport to work even with a population of 5.3 million. In Khatib MRT Station, many residents said that they could not get on the trains during the peak hours. That was even when the trains arrive on time once every two minutes, and they have to wait for the third, fourth, or even the fifth train before they could get on the MRT.

And after a busy day at work or school, we still have to get on the crowded public transport. Those who own a vehicle would have to deal with road congestion or choose to go home late at night to avoid ERP or congested roads. When we go out during the weekends, the shopping malls and public places are thronged with people. The most pressing thing is the long queues in public hospitals and clinics. Some patients have to wait for months to get an appointment. Therefore, it is very difficult to imagine what would happen when we have 6.9 million.

If the situation does not improve, not only will Singaporeans have more grouses, the foreign immigrants might choose to leave and look for a better working and living environment. With more countries using immigration policy to solve population problems, we will be fighting with them for talented people.

Population increase also brought about a noteworthy problem, that is, we do not have enough policemen and security personnel to maintain public security. It is inevitable that a bigger population will create more social problems. From the feedback gathered, we know the police would delay the non-emergency cases when there are more important and urgent cases. We have already outsourced the work of parking wardens. What else can we outsource? With a gradually ageing population, there would be more crimes targeted at the elderly, such as fraud. Public security is very crucial to a nation. Do we have enough policemen to handle all such potential problems? Perhaps, we also need to look into using technology to cut down the workload of policemen and improve their efficiency.

( In English ): Some of my residents also suggested looking into long-term solutions that promote sustainability and self-sufficiency without the need to import significant numbers of foreigners. Japan's ageing population woes may be seeing greater prominence, but a more positive outlook suggests that the youths of Japan may save their gloomy economy through increased interest in entrepreneurship and unique career paths. These alternative choices grew more popular as youths were finding it increasingly difficult to get stable jobs in Japanese corporate firms.

In addition, the ageing population has also spawned profitable businesses geared towards the interests of the elderly, particularly in adult diapers and instant food products. Greater focus is also given to research in green technology and healthcare.

With more productivity in these areas, the nation can expect to reduce two of her greatest financial burdens – energy and medical costs.

The Government should invest more resources in programmes and organisations such as SPRING Singapore which help entrepreneurial citizens build their own businesses. In addition, more research and innovation projects should be dedicated to healthcare for the elderly, to enable our senior citizens to age gracefully and with dignity. With better and more affordable healthcare, the elderly can continue to be contributive citizens who help grow the economy, be it through direct means like working, or indirect means like sharing their experiences and nurturing grandchildren. Besides that, there should be more education for financial planning, plan to have sufficient savings for old age, plan to have sufficient medical insurance coverage for old age. Such education should be introduced in schools.

On the topic of grandchildren, there has been a pessimistic outlook about how it is apparently too late to grow the population at the required speed even if Singaporeans were to start giving birth now. I think it is better late than never. The slew of pro-family measures in the Marriage and Parenthood package is highly encouraging. Nevertheless, we must also realise that money is not the only issue that is discouraging people from procreation. Many residents have confided in me their worries about how stressful life in Singapore is. Potential parents fear that increasing costs of university education and housing will make it difficult for their children to get good jobs or even a roof over their heads in the near future. The influx of foreigners and the perceived problems and competition drives them even further away from the decision of having children. On the other hand, singles are so tied down by their jobs that they hardly have time, or are simply too tired, to get out and mingle, let alone get married.

These pessimistic mindsets and poor work life balance problems must be addressed. Certainly, it will take plenty of patience to turn Singapore into a truly family-friendly society, allowing us to tap on traditional family support for the future, but introducing a large flow of foreigners without solving these problems is akin to rubbing salt on the wound.

The shortage of affordable public childcare and infant care facilities must be addressed to create a family-oriented society. This can be done more efficiently by getting the involvement of employers. Employers who hire a certain number of employees perhaps should be made compulsory to provide childcare service in their premises of the workplace to their employees. Employers could be given incentives or reimbursements for the setting up cost of the childcare centre.

After-school care should be introduced at all Primary schools, allowing children to have a suitable environment to study and socialise with their school mates until their parents are back from work. For lower income groups, this would greatly ease concerns to find economical childcare services and tuition centres.

We are currently experiencing a shortage of teachers. With more foreigners settling down in Singapore and bringing their families, this shortage of teachers will become more severe. We will need to step up on the recruitment of more teachers. A high salary alone may not be a permanent solution as those who are in it for the money may quit after a few years on the job. For many teachers or ex-teachers I have spoken to, the heavy workload is a major problem that deters people from adopting teaching as a lifelong career. Teachers have to handle a myriad of non-teaching related work such as administrative work, co-curricular activities, school excursions and sometimes even counselling. A revision in the responsibilities of teachers should be considered to draw more quality candidates with passion into the profession.

Even at this point of time, xenophobic "us versus them" sentiments are apparent, and lack of integration is the main culprit. The best place for integration would be in the schools. Unfortunately, the increasing number of foreigners has led to the establishment of international schools that cater to specific nationalities, and this impedes integration. These children will grow up among their own countrymen with little motivation for change and assimilation. Eventually, this leads to social segregation. Understandably, we cannot stop such schools from operating, but we can encourage organising of more inter-school activities and more exchange programmes between these schools and the public schools to facilitate socialisation and cultural immersion.

Moving on from schools to employment, on the one hand, Singaporeans are concerned that PMET jobs are going to foreigners, thus depriving them of employment opportunities. There is a fear that once a foreigner takes on a leadership position that gives him recruitment rights, he will shift his whole village to the company.

Recently, a resident came to my Meet-the-People session and she told me that she worked in a piling construction company and the boss of the company came from Myanmar. She said that she joined the company from day one in the administrative/human resource department. After five years with the company, she was retrenched and she was replaced by many others who came from Myanmar.

So, can we not stop companies, for example banks, from hiring foreigners? Because banking jobs are the jobs that Singaporeans would like to do. Can we not reserve the jobs that Singaporeans want, to Singaporeans first? Perhaps, rope in e2i to help companies to fill their vacancies before they are allowed to employ foreigners. On the other hand, the SMEs who hired foreign workers to keep expenses low are experiencing difficulties coping with the increase in foreign worker levies. A balance needs to be sought − I know it is not easy − but it has to be done, ensuring that Singaporeans are getting good jobs while SMEs get time out to adjust to the increase in expenses. My stand on support for SMEs has always been clear – they need more assistance to increase productivity and reduce reliance on manpower.

In the meantime, foreign worker levies should be moderated to allow them time to adapt. Rigidity should not apply to foreign worker levies when different industries and companies have different needs. By providing adequate support for SMEs, only then can we help our home brands to grow into successful companies that eventually provide more employment for Singaporeans. It is sad to see business owners having to turn away business because they cannot get the workers.

I am appalled by the Workers' Party's proposal for zero growth for foreign workforce. Of course it is cool to say so. May I ask the Workers' Party what population figure we should use for the purpose of infrastructure planning? How are we going to build the 100,000 more new BTO flats without foreign workers? In fact, a lot of my friends in the construction industry are crying now. Does it mean that my residents will have to wait longer in order to get their new BTO flats? Does it mean that our aged Singaporeans who need maids are not allowed to employ maids anymore? And who is to sweep our growing number of housing estates? I have many more BTO flats to be completed in the next few years. And what will happen to our healthcare? We are going to have more hospitals, more eldercare homes, and I have visited quite a lot of these homes for the elderly. In fact, they were also telling me that they really have difficulty. We want to build more such facilities and I am sure businesses will be affected, especially the SMEs.

A stagnant or slow-moving economy would result in decreased employment and wages for Singaporeans, as well as a myriad of financial problems. Reasonably, the Government wishes to prevent such a situation from happening. But complaints about the country being run like a corporation are rampant. Tired of the relentless competition and high costs of living, citizens are voicing hopes for reduced obsession in the GDP.

Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee, you may wish to round up your speech. You have a few seconds left.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah: In conclusion, I urge the Government to consider the ground sentiments carefully. Yes, we must plan for the worst and hope for the best. I personally think that planning long term is the right and responsible thing to do. Not every Government has the will and opportunity to do this kind of long-term planning. Come to think of it, long-term planning is crucial for small nations without resources, without a hinterland, like Singapore. But we must address the problems that our masses experience now, give them confidence so that they can share the same vision. Perhaps, it will be less confusing if we call this White Paper "White Paper for Infrastructure Planning", instead of "White Paper for Population".

2.24 pm

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm 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 the Deputy Prime Minister in his opening speech on this Motion have been at pains to stress that 6.5 million to 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 door to immigration, and then turning back at Singaporeans to say that 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 cannot afford cars and if 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.

Mdm Speaker, I oppose the Motion and urge the Deputy Prime Minister 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 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. Mdm Speaker, in my view, a large part of this is down to 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 is 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 are in their 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 cause 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 obviously 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 talking of small knolls and football fields. And this sort of bottom-up citizen-driven campaigns are already taking place with 5.3 million people in Singapore.

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 do not 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 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 million to 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 today, including the brands on show. Housing estates are 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 these 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 at the workplace. It is a well-known fact that, culturally, many Singaporeans work late hours, effectively ridiculing the notion of an eight-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 is time for the Government to step in aggressively. Let us consider going back to basics – would the Government consider legislating the eight-hour workday after which an employer is expected to pay OT across all professions, and not just limited to those earning below $4,500 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 will ask where the money for more productivity incentives and measures to help SMEs 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. Mdm 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 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 million to 5 million, it is 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, Deputy Prime Minister 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 they are 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 Deputy Prime Minister, 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 those wishing to learn English, such as 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.

Mdm 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 1,500 citizens conducted between May and June 2011 that provides insights into Singaporeans' satisfaction with life and living in Singapore, happiness, enjoyment, achievement, emotional well-being, psychological flourishing, economic well-being, overall well-being, 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 well-being research, which focuses on measuring an individual's cognitive and affective reactions to his or her whole life as well as to specific domains of life.

Their 2011 survey showed that Singaporeans were generally satisfied with their lives, 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 enjoy 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". 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 well-being. How is this to be done? Bok identifies strengthening the family and marriage, encouraging active forms of leisure, cushioning the shock of unemployment, universal healthcare and a more secure retirement, improvements in childcare 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.

Mdm 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 the 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 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 is that not 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.

Mdm 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 Singaporeans should anticipate when 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.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this very important debate. The Population White Paper suggests that Singapore needs an annual GDP growth rate of 3% to 5%, on average, up to 2020 and average of 2% to 3% from 2020 to 2030. So, the question is, are we growing too fast or too slow? Before we answer the question, perhaps we could compare the growth rate of Singapore to other developed countries. Mdm Speaker, may I have your permission to show a table on the LCD screen?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [ A slide was shown to hon Members. ]

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Singapore GDP grew by an average of 5.7% per year in the last decade which is relatively higher than five major developed countries, namely, US, the UK, Germany, France and Japan as shown in this table. As the economy matures, we cannot expect the similar high growth rates we have enjoyed in the past. We note that Japan's GDP has grown by 0.8% in the last decade but its GDP per capita actually increased by 1.6% because its labour force has also shrunk by close to 5% during the same period. So, looking at figures, are we contented that Singapore should also grow like Japan, at 0.8% GDP per capita?

To put things in perspective, all the five developed countries have unemployment rate that is well above 4%, with France at more than 10%, US and UK at about 7%. In addition, the size of Singapore's GDP is only 1.7% of that of US, which is the largest economy in the world, 4.4% of Japan and 10.7% of UK. Singapore's economy does not have the same depth and breadth as other matured and larger economies. It is a fallacy to say that Singapore has arrived and should start using our reserves. We are not like Japan where public debt is 245% of GDP. They can still survive and people are still buying their government bonds. If Singapore has public debt of more than 100% of the GDP, like US, I think we will be in deep trouble.

Singapore, as a city-state, has no parallel country which we can compare with. Thus, we need to chart our own path and decide collectively on the economic growth rate that we want to achieve over the next two decades.

While the White Paper has outlined the plan to cope with the future growth of the population, the Government has to convince Singaporeans that we can solve today's crowdedness and associated problems due to the recent influx of foreigners in the past five years, in terms of (a) crowded public transport, (b) traffic congestion and high COE prices, (c) long wait for essential health care and rising medical costs, (d) insufficient HDB flats and rising housing costs, especially in the resale HDB market and private property market, as well as (e) high inflation and rising cost of living.

These have been addressed by many of the hon Members and that is why the amendment Motion by Mr Liang Eng Hwa is very timely and I support that. Several fellow hon Members have already dealt with many of these topics at length, so I do not want to repeat their points. I only want to deal with one particular issue, that is, transport. Before I go on, I would like to declare my interest as I am working for SBS Transit Ltd which is a public transport provider.

With the announcement by the Minister for Transport to build two new train lines to double the rail network from the current 178 km to 360 km by 2030, the roll-out of the Bus Service Enhancement Programme (BSEP), meanwhile, it is a good start. However, many commuters still feel that the public transport is still much more crowded at this point of time as compared to five years ago.

Minister Lui has said that the Downtown Line, when it is operational, will add 50% capacity to the East-West corridor. This is largely true for commuters shuttling between the central parts of Singapore to the Eastern part of the East-West corridor. However, the residents in the West, particularly in Jurong areas, would only benefit significantly, in terms of better connectivity, when the Jurong Regional Line is operational from 2025. Hence, I would like to urge the Minister for Transport to do more for Jurong residents before the Jurong Regional Line is ready.

Next, road and road usage. I noticed from the White Paper's supplement on the Land Use Plan to Support Singapore's Future Population, the land allocated for housing would increase from 10,000 ha in 2010 to 13,000 ha which is about 30% increase. On the other hand, the land allocated for land transport Infrastructure, I presume mainly for public roads, would increase by about only 17% as compared to 30% for housing, as shown in table 2. Incidentally, I think if Mr Pritam Singh had read the Paper, he would also notice that the land use for parks and nature reserves would increase from 5,700 ha to 7,250 ha, a 27% increase. So, there will be more areas for recreation and parks.

If we are managing road growth at a slower pace as mentioned in the White Paper, this means that there would be a tighter restriction on car ownership and usage. With the COE price approaching $100,000, I urge MOT to consider refining the COE system to make it more equitable as raised by many hon Members yesterday. Mdm Speaker, may I seek your permission to distribute table 3 in hardcopy form?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, please. [ Copies of the handout were distributed to hon Members. ]

Mr Ang Wei Neng: As mentioned in the House yesterday, while raising supplementary questions to the Minister of State for Transport, the COE system favours big car buyers, especially in recent years. The percentage of Category A COE, though it fluctuates slightly from period to period, has shrunk from 39% in 2002 to 24% of total COE quota, as shown in table 3. For the same period, the percentage of combined Category B and Category E, which is used mainly for big cars above 1,600 cc, has increased from 33% in 2002 to 37% this year.

This means that for the period between August 2012 and January 2013, there were 7,117 COEs for car buyers to buy big cars but there were only 4,714 in the Category A for Singaporeans to buy small cars. In short, the number of COEs available to buy big cars is 51% more than what is available to buy a small car. That is the main reason Dr Lim Wee Kiak finds that in recent months, we have observed that car agents are selling more Mercedes and BMW as compared to Toyota or Nissan. Thus, I suggest that MOT could consider allocating more COE to Category A and less for Categories B and E because of two reasons: (a) Category A buyers are more likely to be the working class people who need the car for small businesses, job requirements or to meet family needs; and (b) Category B car buyers are more likely to be those who can afford it and are less price-sensitive as well.

Though Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo mentioned yesterday that the contribution rate to Category E has reduced to 20% from 25% previously, from August 2012 to January 2013, it would further reduce to 15% from February 2013. If you read The Business Times report on 7 November 2012 which publicised the number of COEs available from February 2013, it showed that a combined COE quota for Categories B and E is now 60% more than what is available in Category A, for the six months period from February to July 2013. Hence, it is not sufficient to correct the anomaly by just adjusting the contribution in Category E. It might be better for MOT to consider a one-time redistribution.

The minor adjustment is possible even if the overall COE quota is not changed. However, critics may argue that more luxury cars are moving to the segment below 1,600 cc such as VW Golf 1.4 and BMW3-series 1,600 cc variant. Hence, I have earlier suggested changing the definition of Category A to include only vehicles with Open Market Value (OMV) of less than, say, $20,000, which include Toyota Corolla and many other Japanese makes, to favour buyers with smaller budget. I am glad that Minister of State Mrs Josephine Teo has agreed to look into this suggestion.

In short, I urge MOT to refine the COE system to make it more equitable to favour the SMEs and Singaporeans who need a car but have smaller budgets. By doing so, it would illustrate the determination of the Government to address today's concerns before we grow the population further.

As the percentage of Singapore citizens could shrink to as low as 55% when we grow Singapore's population, we need to take steps to ensure that Singaporeans feel secure and benefit from having foreign workers. There are many ways to improve the sense of belonging and rootedness for Singaporeans. Some are tangible and some are not tangible, as mentioned by Minister Grace Fu. I just want to touch on one aspect, that is, how Government can help to provide affordable housing for Singaporeans.

Many Singaporeans are lamenting that public housing is getting expensive and wonder if their children can afford an HDB flat. We are glad that Minister Khaw has already de-linked the prices of BTO flats from market prices. It is certainly a step in the right direction. In fact, I would want to urge the Government to be bold and consider the following suggestions.

Firstly, I hope HDB could tie the affordability of HDB flat with a 20-year housing loan, instead of the current 30 years. Many residents told me that they do not want to use the entire working life of 30 years to pay for the housing loan. Moreover, many feel that they might lose their jobs or be forced to change industries as Singapore restructures its economy. With the push for higher productivity, some companies might not catch up or have to close down and axe workers and create structural unemployment. As such, Singaporeans feel that being able to pay for their HDB flats within 20 years would give them a better sense of security.

Secondly, HDB could consider increasing the housing grant significantly for first-time HDB flat buyers, of course, with means testing. The increase in housing grant would help Singaporeans pay off their housing loan faster. With the increased housing grant, HDB could also consider granting a maximum of 20 years for the housing loan, instead of the current 30 years.

Thirdly, HDB could consider removing the resale levy should Singaporeans want to upgrade to a bigger flat as their family or income grows. Removing the resale levy and limiting the loan repayment period to 20 years would encourage the first-time HDB buyer to opt for a smaller flat at the first instant. This would also allow Singaporeans two bites of the cherry without the stink of the resale levy.

Fourthly, I would like to urge HDB to allow singles above 40 years old to purchase a new 2-room flat so as to give them a bigger stake in Singapore. Why 40 years old? If we allow singles to buy new HDB flat early in age, this might indirectly encourage more Singaporeans to stay single. Why 2-room flat? A 2-room flat is comfortable enough for one person to stay in and probably not roomy enough to rent out one room. We understand about one-third of Singaporeans may choose to remain single and many of them may not afford a resale flat because of high COV.

It is very important that we encourage Singaporeans to get married and have children. We know that many Singaporeans at the age of between 25 and 35 are not married. More than 80% of those who are not married have expressed the desire to get married but more than 80% of them are not dating seriously. We have to find ways to help them to interact and socialise with each other.

The above measures would go a long way to assure Singaporeans that they could afford new HDB flats in the years to come. Many of us want the Government to build more HDB flats. However, I am quite appalled to hear that someone wants to ask the construction industry to slow down. If the construction industry were to slow down, it means that we will probably have less HDB flats, and fewer workers to build MRT lines and other infrastructures that Mr Pritam Singh was asking for. In fact, Mr Chen Show Mao had once said that he would like to have more workers for the construction industry because these are the jobs that Singaporeans do not want to do.

To recap, the above measures would go a long way to assure Singaporeans that they can afford new HDB flats in the years to come. Ordinary Singaporeans, including singles, would feel that the new housing estates at Bidadari, Tampines North, Tengah and the enlarged Punggol are meant for them, not just for the rich Singaporeans. Singaporeans would once again feel proud of our HDB flats.

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned, the main objective of the White Paper is to allow Singaporeans to enjoy the fruits of a vibrant Singapore. We need to convince Singaporeans that the foreign workers are here to build houses, build MRT lines, drive the buses and assist us to care for the elderly. We need to convince Singaporeans that the foreign talents are here to create more good jobs for Singapore rather than taking jobs away from Singaporeans.

To this end, I urge Minister Heng Swee Keat to consider using this White Paper as the cornerstone when embarking on the second phase of the Singapore National Conversation so that Singaporeans can continue to debate and discuss the merits of the many good measures, as mentioned in the White Paper, and build consensus. Mdm Speaker, with this, I support the Motion.

2.56 pm

Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East): Mdm Speaker, the recently released Population White Paper seeks to address two challenges: ageing population and low fertility rate, better known as TFR, by bringing in more immigrants. With projected figures of between 6.5 million and 6.9 million in 2030, it is no wonder that many ordinary Singaporeans have been concerned about the possible decline in the quality of life.

The proposed method of importing immigrants to make up for TFR shortfall is not a long-term solution. I believe that much more can be done to encourage Singaporeans to have more children. We have not yet shown enough political will to remove the institutional and structural obstacles that are discouraging young Singaporeans from having children. If we are going to consider aggressive immigration policies, as a way to correct the problem of low TFR and replacement rates, we should also at the same time be considering more aggressive attempts to support the development of Singaporean families to boost the TFR. Even though we may not see the immediate effects of an increasing TFR till beyond 2030, we are talking about a long-term sustainable solution. Without tackling TFR directly, we will continually have to incease the population by way of immigrants and this will be a never-ending cycle.

There are three areas in which we must do more. Firstly, we must support and invest in all children, regardless of background. Secondly, we must support a more equal distribution of family responsibilities between men and women and the families. And, thirdly, we must institutionalise better work-life balance. The Workers' Party acknowledges that a declining TFR is a serious problem for Singapore. However, we disagree that the solution should be to support a much larger foreign population before we are assured that we are doing enough to support all children in Singapore, regardless of their background or parentage.

The Government has spent billions of dollars on incentives like Baby Bonuses, subsidies for IVF treatment and childcare. I believe we can go further in extending financial support and recognition for families, parents and children that are at the margins of society. The first group in need of more support are low-income families. While the increase in Baby Bonuses under the Baby Bonus Scheme is a welcome relief on parents, the dollar-for-dollar bonus structure tends to favour higher income groups over those who may be more in need of extra financial help to raise children.

The recent Marriage and Parenthood package offers higher Baby Bonus payout, matching dollar for dollar up to $6,000 each per couple first and second child, up to $12,000 each for their third and fourth child, and up to $18,000 each from their fifth child onwards. The question we must ask is: how many families are able to put down $6,000 or more in order to receive the bonuses? How many families are we leaving out of this incentive scheme?

The second group of Singaporeans that tend to be neglected are single parents. A single mother under the age of 35 is disqualifed from buying an HDB flat until she reaches 35 years of age. Even then, she only qualifies to buy under the Singles Scheme. She is only entitled to eight weeks' paid maternity leave, unlike the 16 weeks for a married woman, and a further four weeks of unpaid maternity leave with no Government funding. An unmarried single mother will not qualify for the tax relief for a foreign domestic worker, and is entitled to only two days of childcare leave per year for a child below the age of 7. Her child is considered illegitimate by the Government. Despite this, she would still have to pay taxes and her son would still need to do National Service.

In a recent The Straits Times report, Singapore sees an average of 12,000 abortions a year, and four out of 10 women who went for abortions were single women. Reducing the discrimination against single mothers may reduce the likelihood of single mothers having to resort to terminating their pregnancies for fear of lack of support. Furthermore, for a country suffering from a fertility crisis, each child should be valued and not punished simply because he or she is born to unmarried parents.

We must plan for the future, there is no doubt about that. However, before we invest heavily in developing infrastructure to accommodate extensive immigration which is a "worst case scenario" that the Government says they are hoping will not happen, we must ask whether we have done enough to support all Singaporean families that live in Singapore and their children, and to tackle the problems that are here and now. Not investing enough in our own people is what will cause the real worst case scenario. In addition to investing fully in our families, we must also look at ensuring a family-friendly environment in Singapore.

Parents-to-be have many concerns, especially given the high cost of living and increasingly competitive environment we live in. This includes the loss of income when they have to drop out of work to look after their children, or experiencing a drop in their career prospects, when they have worked so hard from school days to make a successful career. Many parents are concerned about financial insecurity and how to balance having children and their careers, especially so for mothers.

We must do more to tip the balance in favour of having more children, by helping to reduce these concerns. This can be done by encouraging a culture of equality in the family, and encouraging better work-life balance.

One of the often cited reasons for women not having children or not having more children is the lack of support from their husbands. The Marriage and Parenthood Survey 2012 noted that 99% of married respondents agreed that fathers and mothers are equally important care-givers.

Given the high levels of education amongst our women, it is not surprising that many would be concerned about their careers after having a child. Having both parents sharing the responsibilities of childcare can help facilitate the mother's earlier return to work, and reduces the anxiety and concern she has about being unemployed, or her career prospects going forward.

The introduction of one-week Paternity Leave is a step in the right direction towards the greater involvement of fathers. But more can be done to bring balance to the roles fathers and mothers play in looking after their children.

The current Paternity Leave of one week per year is designed for emergencies and can be broken up into seven days over a year. I would like to propose the introduction of Bonding Leave for fathers in addition to the Paternity Leave. A two-week Bonding Leave, where the father can take a week of leave each time to take care of each child, would allow them to care for their children for extended periods in order to share the responsibilities of childcare with their wives and to develop stronger father-child relationships. The cost of this should be shared by the state and the employer. If the scheme is well received, Bonding Leave could be further extended to encourage a more equal distribution of responsibilities between mother and father.

Given our woes over declining fertility, it is time to consider going beyond mere tweaks, to ensure that sharing family responsibilities is something feasible for couples.

Singaporeans work some of the longest hours in the world. A recent survey by Jobstreet.com on work-life balance found that nearly nine out of 10 Singaporeans worked beyond their official hours. After office hours, 70% chose to complete unfinished work in the office while the remaining 30% chose to bring work home. Almost half of them believed that their companies only pay lip service to work-life balance.

Quite clearly, greater Government encouragement is needed in the form of corporate tax relief and enforcement of policies to ensure more companies seriously promote work-life balance, complete workplace. We cannot leave it to private businesses to promote work-life balance on their own, and until bold Government measures are introduced, we will always be stuck in this rut.

Many women also feel that even before they have had their babies, they may be stigmatised by their employers. Many tend to immediately cast doubts over whether a woman can have children and also balance a high-demanding career. I know this from my own personal experience. Just recently, during the by-election campaign, many were asking whether it would be possible for me to be a Member of Parliament and have children at the same time. I can imagine that many women face the anxiety of wondering whether their bosses feel the same way and consider them a liability if they were to become pregnant, and whether they would be able to come back easily after a long period of leave taken to stay at home with their children.

Apart from working remotely, another option for flexible work-life balance is to make part-time work more mainstream. According to an OECD report, birth rates are higher when there are more part-time jobs available to women, in order to facilitate both work and family responsibilities.

This is practised in many Scandinavian countries, for example, Norway. An important factor in making part-time work a viable option is making sure that employees can retain their employment and state benefits. This ensures that part-time work remains desirable and is not considered marginalised labour, but regular employment.

The Government must support a mind-set change in terms of how companies can contribute to the larger society. Today, we see many companies in Singapore and around the world embarking on Corporate Social Responsibility campaigns, committing to being part of solutions to problems facing societies. Agilent Technologies, LinkedIn and Hitachi are some examples of companies that were top-ranked by Forbes Magazine for enabling flexible work schedules. We should study these companies to identify what incentivises such highly successful, profit-making entities to be active proponents of work-life balance and see how they can be applied in the Singapore context.

There may be no immediate solution, or any country that is a shining beacon of success. However, that does not mean we should be resigned to there being no workable solution, hence moving to more drastic measures such as rapid influx of foreigners. The European Union, for example, has recognised the need to ensure flexible work arrangements and has set up committees such as EU Expert Group on Gender and Employment which conducts dedicated research and provides valuable insight into how to better balance work and family life, as a sign of continued commitment to resolving a complex problem. We should commit resources to an independent commission that looks into long-term solutions for work-life balance.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, the Singapore story is about achieving the impossible. This is why we should not so easily give up on our people and their role in driving Singapore's success. I do not claim to have all the answers in my proposals here today. However, we are all here speaking with the best interests of Singaporeans at heart, and it is worth considering different points of views on this White Paper, since we have been facing the problem of low TFR and an ageing population for years, and policy amendments up to this point have seen few results. We should consider all options, and not immediately opt for quick-fix solutions through foreign immigration that will have long-term consequences. We already feel many of these consequences today, and they have yet to be resolved. Do we want to pass this burden off onto our children? Do we want them to become minorities in their own country?

Helping support the growth of Singaporean families is what will keep the dynamism of a society going, as people feel they have options and the freedom to pursue their hopes and dreams without being overly bound by never-ending costs, both financial and otherwise. This is the way forward towards creating sustainable policies that will do Singapore well in the long term.

We should be working towards a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore. With that, Mdm Speaker, I oppose the Motion.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied): Madam, I believe Mr Ang Wei Neng in his speech earlier was referring to my speech in the last Budget debate and the Committee of Supply discussions about foreign worker dependency in our industries. If I may, I would just like to read from that speech to set the record straight and put things in context. Just the relevant paragraphs.

Mdm Speaker: Keep it very short, please.

Mr Chen Show Mao: I will. "The further tightening to reduce our economy's dependence on foreign workers is a necessary step in the right direction. However, I would like to ask the Minister to do more by refining the Ministry's current segmentation of industries in coming up with foreign manpower policies, including dependency ratio ceilings. This does not divert us from our specified goals of reducing our overall foreign manpower dependency and raising productivity because given an overall target and roadmap, the idea is to make it possible for foreign manpower policies to be less stringent for some industries than for others, not for them to be less stringent than the status quo ."

Mr Ang Wei Neng: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Member for his clarification. I referred to the speech that he gave on 28 February 2012, but another paragraph: "Another cluster would comprise industries that contribute to meeting Singapore's social needs and would have a significant impact if higher labour costs were passed to the consumers. So, they include social services, public healthcare and construction for public infrastructure. For these industries, we may need less stringent foreign manpower policy to keep costs low." And that is different from what Mr Pritam Singh has said.

Mr Chen Show Mao: Madam, that was in the context of what I had said earlier, which was to make it possible for different industry clusters, and that was an example I cited, to try to make it possible for different clusters to have different dependency ratios in the context of an overall roadmap that reduces our dependency on foreign workers and raise productivity for our different industries in different ways. I do not think that is inconsistent with anything that the Workers' Party has talked about in this debate.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: A c larification, Mdm Speaker. I just said that Mr Chen Show Mao has said that, "We want to have less stringent foreign manpower policy to keep costs low for the construction industry", but what Mr Pritam Singh said was that, "For construction industry, you got to wake up, you got to face a slower pace". And if you have a slower pace of construction, it will be difficult for us to build more HDB flats and more MRT lines.

Mr Pritam Singh: Mdm Speaker, I can see what Mr Ang Wei Neng is trying to do but I think we need to be quite intellectually honest with ourselves in this debate. What Mr Chen Show Mao has been saying has been quite clearly relevant to what was said in the Budget about one year ago. Now we are talking about productivity, we are talking about wanting to increase productivity. There are some industries which have to work harder at that and what we are saying to the Government is that you can look at construction, as an example, and that is one industry where the Government should do more to ensure that the businesses in construction do not suffer so much because we do acknowledge, and the Government also acknowledges, that in construction, productivity needs to go up, probably more than many other industries.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: I suppose Mr Pritam Singh is doubting my integrity.

Mr Pritam Singh: No.

Mr Ang Wei Neng: I thank the Member for the clarification that it is not so. So, it is in all honesty that we are debating this for the better of Singaporeans. I thank the Member for acknowledging that the construction industry is a difficult industry to attract Singaporeans to work in. There is also a need to increase the productivity in the construction industry and that is what MND has been doing and will continue to do more of. Maybe Mr Khaw can clarify.

Mdm Speaker: I think both sides have made your clarifications. We shall now move on to Ms Faizah Jamal.

3.13 pm

Ms Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker. "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood. Don't assign them tasks and work. Teach them rather to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

Not my words, unfortunately, but the wise words of Antoine de Saint Exupery, the famed author of The Little Prince . Words, Madam, that to me mirror just what is wrong with the White Paper.

From the hasty manner in which it is put to Parliament, the tenor and language of the document, as well as the exhortations for Singaporeans to please hurry up and get down to work both in our careers and in our bedrooms, to bracing ourselves for what can only be a more crowded city than it is now, we are asked to collect wood, and it certainly looks like there is not a whole lot of sea for us to long for either.

Mdm Speaker, it is only barely a week since the White Paper and the Land Use Plan were announced. To be debating on what is arguably the most significant and far-reaching plans for all Singaporeans within such a short space of time is, to my mind, not prudent to say the least.

These are proposals that should be open for public consultations, particularly in view of the recent unhappiness over many issues that are now the subject of the White Paper. After all, the White Paper itself states "Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation. To be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean Core". Should not this then be a serious issue, the subject of the Our Singapore Conversations so that there is at least a bigger context to all that sharing?

Madam, not only does the White Paper not give Singaporeans any longing for the immensity of the sea, the language and the tenor speak more to the head and not to the heart. I will explain what I mean and why I think this kind of language no longer works.

Not only is it based on assumptions that warrant a closer look, from the link between immigration and economic growth to why it is assumed that an ageing population is a bad thing, what alarms me most about the White Paper and the Land Use Plan is the emphasis placed on "economic growth" measured in GDP terms. I know many Ministers have assured the House that this is not the case. Let me explain why I and many members of the public are not convinced.

While there were references to Singapore being a "liveable, lively and well-loved city", the tenor of the White Paper is, to my mind, utilitarian. It is based on the assumption that our needs, human needs – and, in fact, I would even go so far as to question whether these are even "needs" at all, for they are rather "wants" and "desires" – count more than anything else and that anything that stands in the way has to go. Land, even valuable nature areas which are in the way, has to go. It must support our GDP growth. The words "our population and workforce must support a dynamic economy" in the White Paper continue to make Singaporeans feel that we are economic digits rather than individuals whose hopes and aspirations increasingly do not have a whole lot to do with the usual material definition of "success" anymore.

Mdm Speaker, well-being goes beyond GDP growth. It is about fulfilling careers, emotional security, equitable distribution of wealth, affordable housing, healthcare, education and factors in the existence of places that evoke childhood memories, natural spaces and access to these places, based on the well-proven understanding that these spaces provide physical, mental and emotional wellness. It includes the intangible benefits of nature as free eco service providers by being self-balancing systems for clean air, water and land that cannot always be defined in monetary terms and cannot always be computed through a GDP paradigm but which nevertheless offers benefits to our lives.

In a PQ I submitted a few months ago, I asked about the fate of the Sungei Road Second Hand Market. MEWR responded that this has to go by 2016 to make way for the Jalan Besar MRT and for commercial and residential purposes. Madam, this iconic place has existed in Singapore for more than 50 years and has become entrenched in the hearts of Singaporeans, even the younger ones today, as a place, even in all its messiness and quirkiness, has colour and meaning, and appeals to the heart. The letters to the press that ensued from my PQ, the Facebook posts and even a petition to save it, show that this place that MEWR describes as "temporary" despite being in existence since the 1930s – thank you very much – begs the question just what exactly is the meaning of "temporary", shows how people feel about the place. To discount that in the name of development, to me, is a decision that comes from the head and not from the heart.

Yesterday, Singaporeans were told to heed the Government's call to get married, for women to be mothers and have babies. Being a mother myself, I agree completely about the joys of motherhood, challenges as a single mum notwithstanding. Yet, not once during the debate of the last two days did I hear anyone talk about our connection to another Mother − Mother Earth. In the midst of all those numbers we were crunching, it is astonishing to me, Madam, that no mention was made at all on how these numbers impact on something bigger than ourselves − the Environment.

We act as if all that economic growth, all those companies and talent that we want to entice, all the goodies that we want in life, all the construction that is going to happen, do not, in fact, come from somewhere and have to end up somewhere, in the environment. Yet, there is no mention in the White Paper about the impact of so many people on our carbon footprint, our food security – which, as it stands, we are almost 90% dependent on outside sources and what does it do to our vulnerability − the higher cost that Singaporeans have to bear in the years ahead as the pressure on water and energy mounts as we race towards the dream GDP.

It seems to me, Madam, that the policy-makers have a different definition of what "greenery" means. Perhaps they have a different connotation of "forests" and "nature areas". That they have a different shade of green in mind. I especially note with concern that they are encouraging parks, recreational areas and gardens, and the familiar slogan of "City in a Garden" and the word "parks" that is emphasised in the Land Use Plan, with the implication of the heavy intervention of the human hand in landscaping and shaping such manicured spaces.

I note especially with concern the potential disappearance of natural areas with regard to the 50-km Cross-Island Line (CRL) which begins in Changi, cuts through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve and ends in Jurong Industrial Estate. The fact that it goes through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve is a serious concern. This reserve encloses four reservoirs – MacRitchie, Upper Peirce, Lower Peirce and Upper Seletar. In these areas are the oldest patches and some of the least affected forests, the green lungs of Singapore.

In all these areas also are some rare and endemic species, found not only nowhere else in Singapore but nowhere else in the world. Not for nothing are they given a "nature reserve" status. And yet the Line proposes to cut through these precious forests. Perhaps because they do not seemingly contribute towards GDP growth?

While I understand that LTA has informed Nature Society that there is no decision on what kind of line it is going to be, whether it is above ground or underground, I have several questions:

(a) Has any EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) been made, no matter how preliminary, to warrant the plan in the first place?

(b) If there had been, no matter how preliminary, who were these agencies, what were the terms of their reference, what were their preliminary conclusions, and may the public have access for the sake of clarity and transparency?

(c) If these proposals pan out, what is of concern is that beyond the MRT line, and the plans for housing so close to the vicinity, the forest habitat in the Central Catchment areas will deteriorate and become like an island or a fortress surrounded by an inhospitable sea of concrete jungle. When we were fighting for Bukit Brown last year, we were told then that we were making too much fuss because it is not as if Bukit Brown is a forest to begin with, and it is not so bad because it is not as if it affects the Nature Reserve. So, a very pertinent and a more fundamental question to ask now is: how did the Government agencies justify the encroachment on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve now, on what is supposed to be areas that are inviolate? Or is nothing inviolate anymore?

Mdm Speaker, I turn now to our coastal and marine areas. The Land Use Map shows major reclamation works taking place in Pulau Tekong, Tuas, changes to Pulau Ubin, Kranji, Mandai, Pasir Ris, Changi, Tanah Merah as well as the Southern Islands of Pulau Hantu and Pulau Semakau. There are valuable areas of rich native biodiversity, not least of which is Chek Jawa on Pulau Ubin, which many Singaporeans have grown to know and love, which will be lost.

It is also noteworthy that in our seas are dugongs, wild dolphins and even the endangered green turtles and the critically endangered Hawksbill turtle.

Should these non-human species not count, too, in our definition of a "liveable city"?

Reclamation on such a massive scale will lead to serious environmental consequences to all these areas and marine species. It will effectively choke live-bury fish, corals and marine life in our waters. How will this affect our sea water, our rivers, our drinking systems and indeed the very liveable city that the White Paper proposes? Is this yet another example of a policy made from the head and not from the heart?

So, I repeat my request for clarity on whether there had been an EIA done on these areas as well.

Missing in the Land Use Plan is also any mention of planning for climate change and rising seas levels. I note that Singapore's northern shores and Pulau Ubin and Pulau Tekong, where most of the new developments will occur, lies at the mouth of the massive Johor River. Does the plan take into account the possibility of more rainfall and storms, and how these will affect water flows down the Johor River and, inevitably, towards us?

Mdm Speaker, I call for compulsory Environment Impact Assessments and that these be open to public scrutiny so that there is openness, transparency and accountability. Having EIA laws that are compulsory also serves Government agencies because they can then use this to defend themselves against any public reproach in the future.

Mdm Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, together with sustainability consultant Mr Eugene Tay, I co-organised an "Our Singapore Conversation" in collaboration with and support from the OSC Secretariat for members of the green community. It was arguably the biggest gathering of environmental activists from animal welfare to nature lovers to the "brown" issues proponents of waste and water management, from well-known academics to Secondary school students, from veteran activists of 30 years' standing to fledgling student-led environment clubs. To a man, and woman, and beyond our individual passion and interest, each and every one of the close to 80 people called for a society based on compassion, justice, graciousness, the "kampung spirit" and for a life that goes beyond the material success that we are so used to hearing.

We went further and called for such values to be evident not just between human beings but also in our relationship with all sentient beings and with nature. We called for a recognition that as human beings we need to realise and recognise that there is so much we can do when we put human beings front and centre of everything the way the White Paper has done. It is time that we stop having the notion that natural spaces are good to have but will be set aside "when it is practical to do so", which is the language of the Land Use Plan as if even nature is an economic digit. It is time that we move away from the anthropocentric view that the White Paper and the Land Use Plan continue to base policies on.

Mdm Speaker, only last year, in this very space in my maiden speech as a newly-minted NMP, I had given anecdotal evidence of how my 19-year-old students learnt to connect to something bigger than themselves and certainly beyond connecting WIFI to iPods and iPads, as a result of being taken into the forests. They felt a sense of who they are, what they are, of place and of identity, a love for Singapore. Beyond their expressions of awe and delight at discovering the treasures of wild spaces that no park, no landscaped or manicured lawns and gardens can give them, they also expressed feelings of peace, well-being and even feelings of spirituality.

Interestingly, these anecdotal examples were given solid findings in many a scientific paper. For example in the latest article of The Atlantic , 22 January 2013, "when trees die, people die", environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan said that nature has apparent restorative ability. "Natural scenes", they said, "effortlessly are able to capture people's attention, take the place of negative thoughts and emotions which are then overtaken by a positive sense of well-being". Imagine how much this can reduce the burden on our healthcare system and in reducing stress.

I would submit that it is all the more imperative that we leave whatever we have left of such places, well and truly alone. I would go so far as to say that rather than fit such nature areas into our lifestyle, our increasing wants and desires, that we, instead, downsize our wants, that we learn to co-exist and fit ourselves into these areas for a change.

Mdm Speaker, environmentalism is not an interest group; it is the foundation of all else. If there is no environment, there is no economy. If we continue to act as if human beings are no more than economic digits, as if human beings are the top of the heap and think we can get away with it, we will continue to be an egocentric society which has cut off its own heart and then attempts to live without it. How is that "sustainable"? To me, that is the height of insanity.

There is so much we can plan and manage and do before Nature takes its course. Far better it is then to manage our consumer lifestyles, our quest for ever growing "economic growth" to sustainable levels and change our paradigm from a linear, GDP-driven basis to something that is way more humane.

So, what would a White Paper that speaks to and from the heart look like?

First of all, this White Paper will not even exist until the Government addresses the trust issues that have taken a severe beating in the last few years. It will first repair the relationship with the people and, like in all good relationships, choose to listen not just with the ears but with the heart. Then, if there is to be a White Paper, this is how it is going to look like to me, the ordinary Singaporean.

It will make me long for the immensity of the sea. It will present to me a society that is kind, generous in material as well as in spirit, compassionate, believes in and acts upon equality for all, regardless of not just race, religion and language, but also gender, political beliefs and sexual orientation, low-wage workers, both local and foreign. It would speak to me of places I can go in Nature, untouched by the human hand, unmanicured, unlandscaped, because it sees value in the intangibles. It speaks to me that it will not tolerate companies who treat relationships with workers as mere transactions, who choose the cheap foreign worker option, because the White Paper understands that there is a bigger humanity at stake here, which is that for every company that leaves our shores to another country because we have no more cheap labour, that these same companies will have no compunction about leaving that other country and seek cheap people elsewhere. It will therefore consciously choose a different economic paradigm, one that is based on consciousness. It will implement policies that understand that our choices have an impact on something bigger than ourselves and even the GDP.

Lastly, Mdm Speaker, in the Ancient Egyptian embalming practice, all organs of the body are taken out of the body and then they are placed in four decorated porcelain jars. All, that is, except two. One is the heart, which is put back in the body because it is believed that it is the most vital organ and the only one that will allow the soul to be taken to the next level of existence. And the other is the brain – and guess what the Egyptians do with it? They throw it away. Why? Because, to them, the brain is not important at all.

I suggest that these ancient wise ones have much to teach us about the limitations of thinking from the head, and the true power of being in the heart. We have been very good at thinking with our heads and devising linear systems from our educational system to our economic system. They run really well. We believe that in all things, only what is "practical" and what can be counted in tangible terms, rule. However, sadly, along the way we have forgotten that, in the end, it is about connecting with people, connecting with our natural environment and the recent events of the past few years bear this out.

Mdm Speaker, the public already know this. They want to choose a different paradigm. The time has come for the Government to do likewise. We too are going to our next level of existence in Singapore's history. It will take great courage to change what no longer works. It is interesting to me that the word "courage" itself comes from the French word " coeur " which means "heart". I would like to think that the Government of the day has what it takes.

As it stands, speaking for myself and on behalf of many, not just in the green community that I represent, but all right thinking Singaporeans who are increasingly making their voices heard that there is more to life than GDP, I cannot, I cannot in all good conscience, endorse the White Paper.

Mdm Speaker: Well, at least now I know a lot more about embalming practices of the Egyptians. Mr Yee Jenn Jong, please.

3.30 pm

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Mdm Speaker, I object to the Motion. The Workers' Party is proposing an alternative model – one that is based on a dynamic population for a sustainable Singapore.

What is a sustainable Singapore? Reading through the White Paper, I get a sense that Singapore is a large factory. We need 2%-5% annual economic growth. Our local workforce will shrink due to ageing and fertility issues. To achieve the targeted economic growth, the Paper worked out that we need 1%-2% yearly increases to our workforce. Based on that, Singapore will receive large number of immigrants. It could bring our population to 6.9 million within the next 17 years. This will be a 30% increase to our population in an already congested Singapore. Most of us in this House will still be around 17 years from now. This is the situation that we ourselves will face, not just our children and our grandchildren.

If we are just Singapore Inc, a business that looks coldly at hard economic data and at the bottom line, the above sounds logical. However, we are not a business. We are a country, a nation.

I grew up learning to be proud of my country. Proud to be called a Singaporean. I was born here in the year of our Independence, studied entirely in our local schools and went through National Service like all Singaporean males. In school, we had programmes that made us feel proud of this little red dot, proud to be part of a free and independent nation. When I travel overseas, I am happy to identify myself as a Singaporean.

The first pillar of the White Paper states that Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of our nation. I agree with this statement. But who is a Singaporean? The Paper projects that there will be 3.7 million Singaporeans in 2030, forming roughly 55% of the population. I have two problems with this.

My first objection is that 55% will cross the psychological 60% threshold of citizens forming our population. This is a line that is not crossed by the global cities we are comparing ourselves against, including New York and London. The percentage of citizens in our population has steadily declined from 74% in year 2000 to 62% today. It will decline further to 55% by 2030. Will it go below 50% soon?

My second objection is who the Paper defines as the Singaporeans that will form our core. We had 77,000 new citizens added in the last four years alone, an average of 19,000 a year. Already, many local-born citizens are uncomfortable with this pace. The Paper provides for new citizens growth to be as high as 25,000 a year. With current annual citizen birth rate of 31,000, this means that up to 45% of citizens added to the population yearly will be foreign-born.

Mdm Speaker, I am not against foreigners who wish to become Singaporeans. Truly integrating them to become Singaporeans, as we know Singaporeans to be, will take time. To integrate, the foreigner has to spend substantial time here and should make genuine effort to understand our way of life and speak our language. How fast can we make that happen with adult immigrants?

We are already facing many integration issues in Singapore today. Various enclaves with majority of residents from specific countries of birth have sprung up. New citizens often bring their parents and families along, many of whom do not speak English. They live amongst us daily. We may have 3.7 million Singapore citizens, but just over 3 million will be local-born. This means that as low as only 45% of our population in 2030 could be local-born. True-blue Singaporeans will become the minority here. What will become of Singapore's culture? Whose culture will influence whose?

Singapore only established the National Integration Council in 2009, four years ago. Our programmes for integration lag behind those of other countries and cities. In other multicultural immigrant countries like Australia, Canada and the USA, immigrants have to show that they are integrated before they get citizenship. Ability to integrate should be a key consideration to grant citizenship and not as an afterthought, after getting citizenship.

Mdm Speaker, I have a tale of two videos – two widely watched National Day videos last year. The first is the Government's official video, showing beautiful buildings, magnificent skylines, luscious gardens and beautiful homes. The second is an informal video made by teachers and students of a college. It speaks of the heart of the people, what makes Singapore Singapore: HDB flats, children playing together in a humble playground, getting stuck in traffic jams, being packed in MRT trains, coffeeshop scenes and more.

The first showed beautiful hardware, like the infrastructure in the Land Use Plan. The second speaks to our hearts, loving Singapore in spite of the problems we face. It is getting Singaporeans to love Singapore for what it is, loving the mix of people in our midst, loving the common things that we do every day.

The White Paper has proposed a lot of infrastructure. Yes, it is important to have good infrastructure. Beyond the hardware, we need to build a strong Singapore Core that shares common values, world views, culture and a sense of identity. These can only be cultivated over time. Taking in too many new citizens too fast will only give us a false sense of complacency that we have a strong Singapore core when we do not have a strong one.

Before we open the floodgates for new citizens, we have to learn how to integrate new citizens properly. True integration is difficult. The pace needs to be more manageable. Anecdotally, a pace of around 10,000 a year, which was what Singapore had before 2005, is perhaps more sustainable.

Our immigration policy takes into account factors such as the individual's family ties, economic contributions, qualifications, age, family profile, ability to contribute and integrate into our society, and commitment to Singapore. How exactly are these factors being computed? Can we have a more transparent point system like that of other countries?

I ask this because all Members must have seen many people during their Meet-the-People Sessions to appeal for LTVP, LTVP+ and PR for their foreign spouses. Some have been married for years to Singaporeans and have Singaporean children, yet they continue to be denied PR and sometimes LTVP+. We were often not told why in the rejection letters.

Next, I wish to touch on increasing TFR. Challenging as it may be, increasing our TFR is still the best way to sustain a Singapore Core. My party colleagues have made various suggestions earlier. I would like to focus on education and childcare. These can influence young couples in their decision to have children or have more children.

Yesterday, Minister Grace Fu said that the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) is working with MOE to reduce stress and to provide holistic education for students. I am glad MOE wants every school to be a good school. However, MOE is struggling against many of their entrenched policies that have added unnecessary stress and cost to education. The Primary 1 registration gives priority to alumni, to those living in the immediate vicinities of schools and to parent volunteers. Getting children into what parents perceive as good schools is a stressful process. And while MOE tells parents that every school is good, parents know which schools are better. From MOE's data, we see that the results achieved by students at PSLE are vastly different across schools. Two days ago, we were told that median 2012 PSLE T-scores in schools range from 160 to 247, a wide difference in standards. So, parents try very hard to get their children into what they perceive as better schools.

Unnecessary examinations such as for giftedness add to parents pushing their children hard right from entry into Primary schools. Secondary school admission is almost entirely based on the T-score achieved at the PSLE. Today, Secondary schools and academic streams are highly differentiated. Students are sorted into schools of different status and into different academic streams. Parents push children hard at high stake examinations to get them into desired schools or to avoid certain academic streams. Often, they take leave from work to coach their children. Even Minister Grace Fu had said that she took leave to coach her children for the PSLE. Some get so exhausted in the process that they decide not to have more children.

Many parents have deemed it necessary to get private tuition for their children. A Sunday Times poll five years ago of 100 students showed that 97 of them had tuition. The situation is no better today. Parents even send children for tuition to get them into the Gifted Education Programme because GEP has the Direct School Admission (DSA) advantage into top Secondary schools.

While some level of stress is healthy to keep students diligent, many parents have cited stress in our education system and the high cost of tuition as important factors for not having more children. We are often told that Singapore parents are kiasu. I believe the system has made them so.

I will elaborate on future occasions when I make proposals for the education system.

Next, infant care and childcare are important for young parents. Last month, the Government announced a slew of goodies in this area. I welcome the fact that the Government is willing to put more money into the industry. I had made various proposals in the adjournment Motion on childcare last year. While a lot more money is now added, there is no change to the structure of the industry, which I consider is flawed. It is flawed because the industry is left to private market mechanisms. This is made worse by hugely disproportionate Government grants for a small number of Anchor Operators that give them incredible advantages over other players in the industry.

I fear that the monies injected will inflate rents and fees. We had seen that before. In 2008, the Government doubled monthly subsidies to working mothers. Fees quickly went up after that. Under this new subsidy framework, the situation will be worse for higher income families. Those near to, or above $7,500 in monthly family income will get little or no additional subsidies. Private market forces will escalate fees. These parents will end up paying more for childcare. I hope MSF can consider making childcare as a public good, with open competition for all and with fairer support for all operators. MSF is already spending a lot of money on infant care and childcare. Reforming the industry may be a smarter and more efficient way to achieve affordable fees and high quality services with the same money. It will take away the uncertainty of childcare cost for young parents.

Next, I like to deal with issues raised by some PAP Members. Dr Amy Khor has said our proposal will hurt businesses. Ms Jessica Tan asked if we had read the new reports that businesses are planning to leave. Yes, the economy will go through some pains but it is simplistic to say that slowing the manpower growth is what kills businesses. I know of businesses that have been killed, not by lack of manpower, but by high rentals. The Government's policy on industrial land, for example, has caused huge spikes in rents and land prices. Companies that need transport find it hard to afford vehicles due to high COE prices. The cost of many items has gone up. These are in part due to Government policies and the overcrowding of Singapore. The Government certainly has scope to re-examine its policies and to see how else it can help businesses restructure in times like this.

Mr Inderjit Singh has called our proposal zero growth. Our proposal is not zero growth. Our GDP projections are just 0.5% to 1% lower than the Government's. GDP growth of 1.5% to 3.5% is decent by the standard of mature economies. We have a 1% increase in resident workforce as well.

PAP Members have painted us as turning off the tap, as if leading businesses to dry up. This is an incomplete picture. The tap leads into a plugged sink, that is already filled with quite a lot of water. There are 2.1 million residents and 1.3 million non-residents in our workforce. We have two taps. As foreigners leave for whatever reasons, we turn on the non-resident tap to fill it back up. We can try to get more out of the resident tap by increasing it at 1% per annum. If the resident tap cannot fulfil that, we turn on the non-resident tap. We are not leaving the sink dry. In contrast, the Government needs to be reminded that the sink is actually quite full. Having the taps turned on too fast will flood Singapore with a population that we will struggle to manage in the future.

We have studied the population data. You can see from the projections that by managing both taps, there could be an increase in population to 5.8 million in the worst case. This GDP trade-off will allow a more sustainable population growth of at most 500,000 people over the next 17 years.

Lastly, Mr Vikram Nair seems fascinated by the way we run our Aljunied-Hougang Town Council. He is welcomed to visit us. He said he is interested because he wants to know how the Workers' Party will run this country if we are in power. He wants to know how we will use foreign manpower. I believe Mr Nair has forgotten that we are elected by the people to be in this House to establish policies and make laws, not to run businesses. This is precisely the problem I spoke about in my maiden speech in this House, that our Government runs many big businesses across our economy. When the Government itself is a big vested player, and in fact the biggest single player in the economy, it will itself take a lot of pain when the economy is restructured hard.

Mr Nair may like to know that the Workers' Party is interested to get policies right for the people of Singapore and not to run businesses, whether with foreign or local staff.

In conclusion, PAP Members spoke of the pains to SMEs with our proposal. I should know. I have owned and run private businesses for the last 13 years. Yet, at the same time, I am reminded that I am also a father to three children. I think of what Singapore would be like for them 17 years from now. I think for Singaporeans, what Singapore would be like for them when we ramp up our population so fast, leaving just 4% of our land as reserved space. Would we reach the population cliff by 2030?

Singaporeans are told there are trade-offs. We are told that a population of up to 6.9 million may be required because the Government believes we need 2% to 5% economic growth yearly. Unlike the Government, we present a model for sustainable growth, more consistent with fostering a strong Singapore Core.

If there is a trade-off, are Singaporeans given any choice? Perhaps, there is an overwhelming majority of Singaporeans who do not wish to be the minority in their own country. Perhaps, Singaporeans would rather make do with a more manageable growth to keep their birth rights.

We had already moved too fast in the past eight years. The decisions made today cannot be reversed. We will sooner or later face the constraint of our small land size. If this Government moves too fast again, what would be left in the future to sustain the future generations? I urge the Government to reconsider its plan and opt for a more manageable growth that will allow us to keep Singapore as the Singapore we know. Mdm Speaker, I oppose the Motion.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.50 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]: ####

A SUSTAINABLE POPULATION FOR A DYNAMIC SINGAPORE: Debate resumed.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this Motion. Sensing the ground, speaking to residents and friends, this debate on the Population Paper is a bold move and has generated much debate among citizens. I thank Deputy Prime Minister Teo and the Ministers for sharing the Government's deliberations in putting forth this White Paper and the rationale behind the various plans presented.

The White Paper has outlined bold initiatives, such as the Marriage and Parenthood package, packed with substantial benefits and subsidies. It has also put forth a bold promise of 700,000 homes, how we will optimise land use, the upgrade of public transport system and other measures to ensure that Singapore can scale to accommodate more growth.

It is also certainly bold for the Government to make public its planning consideration towards a 6.9 million population projection. The Workers' Party, as iterated by Member Pritam Singh earlier, has also taken the bold step of projecting a population target of 5.9 million in 2030. I agree that we face a tight infrastructure today. And, therefore, my view is that it is better to commit resources to ensure that we do not face the same issues today in 2030. Infrastructure cannot be built overnight. So, I ask, what is the Workers' Party's position on what should be the parameters for population planning? As it stands, should the Government plan on a 6.9 million projected upper limit in 2030? Or should we plan based on a 5.9 million population projection and with future bottlenecks again? If we fail to plan sufficiently, we plan to fail.

As for Member Yee Jenn Jong, I am not clear on his objectives on subsidies for childcare for fear of fees going up. I think MSF has got guidelines on fee increases. So, is he asking for the Government not to give childcare subsidies or that all private centres close down and be taken over by the Government and be made public? We cannot, in all honesty, use Government funds to fund shareholders' profits. The Anchor Operators today are charity foundations, and I believe the right step is to increase the number of Anchor Operators, but we have to qualify and ensure that taxpayers' support in subsidies is met and used for the right reasons and not to line the pockets of private shareholders.

Through my interaction with residents and Singaporeans in general, most understand our challenges of an ageing population and how our population will downsize in the long term if we do not take the necessary steps today. However, many are also concerned because not enough time has been spent to convince and solicit feedback from the public to assure them that the White Paper is in sync with their aspirations and why this is the best way forward.

The initiatives presented are bold, but the Government needs to do more to show that it has come up with ground-breaking solutions to some of our existing issues. The White Paper also leaves Singaporeans with many other questions. What will our cost of living look like in 2030? Will Singapore still be an affordable place for my children? Can my children succeed and find their way in this Singapore 2030? What types of jobs and what kind of salaries can we expect by 2030? Will I retire comfortably and what amount of savings and retirement income do I need to live comfortably? And for those left behind, what will our safety nets look like for citizens who cannot cope with the high-value, high-pace economic and social environment?

Mdm Speaker, let me begin on an area which the Population Paper has not addressed substantially, which is Singapore's cost of living and the economic competitiveness from a cost perspective – and how these will be projected into the 2030 scenario.

Reading the White Paper, I appreciate the plans and proposals for Singapore to provide quality housing, quality education, attract quality investments and so forth. But reading the booklet, there is a lot of mention of "quality" but our concern on "affordability" is not covered in the same depth.

We appreciate the Government being upfront and transparent on its planning projections. But this also created fear – not just about the perceived lack of space – but also how do we manage costs as Singapore tries to move towards high value-add industries, higher quality housing, higher quality education. So, basic economics tell us, in a land-scarce environment – as more land is used, property prices will only have to go up. Meaning business costs, consumer indices seem destined to go just one way – up.

The narrative about "quality" lifestyle becomes synonymous to high-cost lifestyle in people's minds. I hope that the Government will consider a dedicated initiative in its population plan and put in the necessary research and resources. We have asked businesses to transform to adapt to the changing economic and manpower landscape. But the Government also needs to be proactive to find ways to transform our cost structure and supply-side strategy to manage costs because our current strategies are not sustainable given our land constraints. What happens beyond 2030 if we get our land supply policies wrong? We need to and we should also look into sacred policies or philosophies, if necessary, to look into managing our cost of living and cost of doing business in Singapore.

I am concerned that the Government has not done enough to outline how it plans to reign in inflation for the long haul. How do you plan to balance high quality living with affordability of Singaporeans?

The recent Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) survey that ranked Singapore as the sixth most expensive city in the world and the third most expensive in Asia. It is a concern for me. I think many Singaporeans as well. Member Inderjit also pointed out yesterday that our wages have not caught up with inflation given the steep increases over the past few years.

The Government needs to make clear where we stand on managing our cost structure. Should we not also make it a goal to reduce our cost structure to move our ranking down the ladder? And on the wages benchmark, we should be conscious of how real wages move in line with inflation and cost of living indices.

In fact, the Government should avoid statements that aim to compare our costs to other global cities as the primary indicator. Yesterday, I noted Transport Minister's statement that our public transport fares have not increased as much as other global cities. It is a credit that the Ministries try to keep our costs low by comparing to similar economies. But in addition to such comparisons, the Government should consider and share with the public how fares and other public costs are also benchmarked to increases in real wages, especially at the median and the lower income groups.

So, we cannot just take a topline approach. I ask that the Government reconsider its KPIs and benchmarks to include how the various costs, whether it is public costs – transport costs, housing, food, recreation facilities – have affordability benchmarks pegged to real wage growth. Our strategy cannot be just about GDP growth, it should also be about real wage growth and household income growth. So, the Government needs to keep grounded to keep affordability and quality of living sustainable.

On the business front, similarly, we should not simply benchmark our cost indices to the global cities. Their business dynamics are different and their economies are more mature with a larger proportion of local businesses that carry the local economy. So, why is this important to Singaporeans? There is a link. If companies are not profitable, they are pressured not to pay Singaporeans well and not give bonuses and increments. If companies are under cost pressure, this is when they revert to lower cost alternatives by using foreign labour and here is where wages may be depressed. Otherwise, companies may just move out of Singapore to find lower cost alternatives. So, my concern for the ordinary worker is that any productivity gains that the Government has pushed for so far may be lost to increases in rentals and other business costs.

The Government needs to do more to help businesses manage their cost structure and help them derive more value add from our economy. To do so, the Government may also need to relook its revenue maximisation mantra for land use and value-add KPIs it expects from its agencies, such as JTC and its corporate spin-off, Ascendas. The business community perceives them as expensive sources of industrial property space rather than agencies that add value to their growth. This, despite the Government's best intentions to help our local businesses. Given the expectation to extract the maximum value for our limited landspace, this approach seems to have translated into how agencies charge for services and rentals in trying to match market prices.

Recently, Madam, I led a delegation of business leaders to the Iskandar region. Of course, it was heartening that Ascendas has also ventured into Iskandar and I was asking if any of the businessmen were interested in exploring space with them. Many were of the impression, and likely, that Ascendas would be more expensive than some of the local industrial developers. So, if we take a purist free market approach even as a Government, we are not helping our SME businesses venture and grow. We need to take a differentiated approach to ensure that we continue to build and support quality growth of our SMEs.

Recently, I met a resident during a block visit who had just moved in, in the last few months. They said they purchased a flat which was previously managed by JTC. I asked, they must have gotten a good price for it? They said, no, JTC asked for $30,000 Cash-Over-Valuation (COV) upfront. So, I asked myself why does the Government need COV? Thus, we need to be mindful of the impact and influence these agencies have on the market and on the people.

If Government agencies and vehicles take the perspective of maximising revenue in each venture, where should our local businesses and SMEs turn to?

I hope that the Government invests more in research and manpower to find breakthrough solutions beyond traditional methods, such as currency control and land sales, to manage inflation, property prices and rentals. There are also limits to Government subsidy and tax rebates if costs are not managed effectively. We must find new ways of managing our cost structure. The White Paper should consider dedicating a whole chapter on affordable cost of living and sustainable cost of doing business in 2030. This will send a strong signal on the Government's priorities in managing our cost issues today, projecting into 2030.

Madam, the low GDP growth projected by the White Paper of 3%-5% per annum for seven years and then 2%-3% from 2020-2030, has caused concern among the business community. Many business leaders I speak to are also concerned with the Government's deliberate attempts to manage expectations on this growth number, coupled with the tightening of foreign manpower.

So, this is how it looks to businesses. Singapore is projecting a low growth, but Singapore lies within a fast-growth, high-growth region with many opportunities to offer. Our competitors are surely looking at companies here and will try to lure them over. Many of our businesses today are already exploring cheaper alternatives, such as the Iskandar and beyond.

Based on yesterday's Business Times report, the American Chamber of Commerce has indicated that 5% of member companies it surveyed have already moved their operations out of Singapore and that a further 15% of respondents are looking at relocating their businesses overseas. If we lose up to 20% of such companies, I worry for job losses for Singaporeans.

Singapore's competitiveness is at stake as we debate politics and let emotions run. The Workers' Party proposal only served to send more severe signals to the market and businesses.

The White Paper's projection is already cause for concern and the Workers' Party's recommendation of not increasing foreign worker growth till 2020 will cripple many businesses. I foresee the following implications.

Firstly, it will be difficult to have new investments and emerging sectors in Singapore. Our economy needs to be dynamic, but if emerging sectors do not come, we cannot transform.

Speak to any young Singaporean. Almost all will aspire to have an exciting job or entrepreneurial opportunities. If we cannot gear the economy right, we cannot create the kind of jobs our young Singaporeans want.

Our SMEs are likely to be the first to be affected as they would not be able to compete for labour against the MNCs. Even the MNCs will find it difficult if they want to move more operations or value jobs here to Singapore. If we are doing this, we are giving them the wrong signal of not wanting them in Singapore.

But I am most concerned about essential areas, such as healthcare, where we need to be able to find people to do the difficult jobs of taking care of the less able, elderly and the ill. So, we still need foreign manpower to supplement our own, but I think the Government needs to calibrate – and go down into more details which areas the conditions should be more relaxed. But manage the overall foreign manpower population numbers.

We need to manage population and manpower polices well. I agree with Member Inderjit as well, that we should give our smaller businesses more breathing space to adapt. SMEs do not have the benefit of larger firms who can attract top talents and have the spare capacity to transform and transit to the next business model. Several business associations have come out to say that the projected productivity gains are aggressive as the trends have shown that the industries have always lagged behind the Government's productivity targets.

It will also help businesses, if the Government takes the bold step of being more transparent to businesses on target quotas for the various work passes, and broad allocations to the different sectors. This will also help companies by giving them advanced notice and adapt to the environment better. I also strongly encourage the Government to have a more open approach in helping companies manage their foreign manpower workforce. We must give them some level of certainty that they face no shock surprises when work permits are not renewed or new growth requirements cannot be met.

The reality is that GDP is about jobs and the livelihoods of Singaporeans. Let us not sell Singaporeans half-truths. Let us be honest about the implications of the projections – foreign manpower, GDP growth, population projection – we are all putting our livelihoods at stake here. These are about our jobs, these are about the jobs that our children can have when they graduate, these are about the businesses that we want to run, or businesses that our children want to start up.

But the Government also needs to change the narrative on jobs competition against foreign manpower. We need to come to a compromise on the Government's position and its narrative. We need to do more to assure Singaporeans that Singaporeans do come first. Singaporeans accept competition, and that we cannot be protectionist. But Singaporeans must also know that their interests are always protected, their stake and commitment here must count for something.

We must make Singaporeans feel valued. Do more to develop each citizen to his or her full potential. And I urge the Government, as some Members have before me, to take the bold step of seeking companies to justify why a Singaporean cannot fill a job, in order to justify their need for foreign manpower growth. I also urge the Government to strengthen our laws and enforcement authority against discrimination against Singaporeans and biases against race, against age, against gender. Singaporeans cannot lose out on opportunities because someone else comes in cheaper. After all, Singapore has created a high cost of living structure and we need to ensure that our citizens are taken care of and get the adequate wages to survive.

This is a small step, but it gives deep assurance to Singaporeans. If we want Singaporeans to buy in to the population proposal and accept that we need to have a diverse workforce, they must feel and see that their place as Singaporeans in their homeland is secure. Home is where the heart is. This is where the hearts have to be won.

Madam, I am heartened by Minister Grace Fu's response with regard to the racial mix of Malays of 14.9% in 2000 and 15.1% in 2010. I hope that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) or even the Prime Minister himself can give assurance to the Malay community that the Government will preserve the racial proportion of Malays even as the population grows in 2030.

There is a Malay saying, made famous by Hang Tuah, "Tidak Melayu hilang di dunia" which means "the Malays will not disappear from the earth". The community also hopes, that come 2030 and beyond, the Malays do not become a super-minority in Singapore and this assurance will go a long way, as the Government commits to do its utmost, including ensuring that the foreign workforce is also representative of the race.

I believe our sustenance today at this level has been due to organic growth, while the community has seen the influx of new immigrants and workforce of other races. The same fears can also be said of the Indian community here. The new citizens, Permanent Residents and the workforce are of the same race, but not really the same.

Madam, if I may refer to an exchange between Member Zainudin Nordin and Member Faisal Manap yesterday. I was mentioned with regard to sentiments in the community on the position of Malays in the SAF.

In the last Committee of Supply (COS) session, I sought clarity from MINDEF in order to measure our progress periodically and be that check and balance for the community. I was heartened that MINDEF has assured the Malay community that there is positive progress being made, there is loosening of the policy and that MINDEF continues to be in sync and is aware of where the community wants to head. And I hope, Madam, that this progress continues.

But if I may bring us back to this population debate. This is a question for PMO and MINDEF to ponder. I know it is not easy because this is a concern on national security – but I ask, on behalf of many Malays in the community who have asked this question as well – for the Government to consider.

We have 40% of marriages between Singaporeans and foreigners, and more new citizens that have been added in the last few years and forthcoming years from now as well. Seventeen years from now, in 2030, what will be the position of the Government of our Malay sons next to others from these families with foreign spouses and new citizens? This will be a question to consider as the numbers from immigration and foreign spouses have increased significantly. Seventeen years from now, we will see more and more sons of this segment serving National Service. But I hope that by then, our national security narrative pertaining to Malays serving in the defence sector would have also evolved and that all sons of Singapore get an equal footing in all opportunities, including that in our national security services.

Madam, understandably, the 6.9 million headline took precedence over other strategic issues when the White Paper was first announced. It was unfortunate that our ageing population needs, managing our economic growth outcomes, ensuring a Singapore Core —

Mdm Speaker: Mr Zaqy, you may want to round up your speech, please.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: Yes, Madam. The fears of Singaporeans are rational, especially when many see the competition for jobs, space, opportunities with the influx of foreigners and immigration.

If Singaporeans are faced with such negative feelings for the population projection, it will be hard for the country to reach consensus this way. We need more time to let the messages sink in with the population, allow citizens to speak up, share their aspirations and fears.

Madam, I stand and believe that Singaporeans do care about their future here and their children's future here – as much as I do for my future here and my children. So, I understand what they are asking for, and I share their aspirations and fears. Singaporeans are rational but on this Paper, I believe Singaporeans need more time and convincing.

I ask that the Government give more time for citizens to discuss this issue and let Singaporeans know that this is not a plan cast in stone. Spend more time to present the scenarios the Government has studied and why the recommended approach in the White Paper is the best way forward. Not everyone will agree, but I believe, given more time, the country can rationalise and come to a consensus on our population challenges and the way forward. Madam, I support the White Paper and Member Liang Eng Hwa's amendments.

4.32 pm

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Madam, I have two supplementary questions for Mr Zaqy. He referred to my speech about childcare and he said that we should increase the number of Anchor Operators instead of lining the profits of private shareholders. He also referred to my proposals. I hope Mr Zaqy has heard my proposals during my adjournment Motion where I had also asked for the same conditions and criteria to be given to private operators if you are to appoint them as Anchor Operators.

Now, I would like to ask Mr Zaqy if the private operators can use the same conditions applied to Anchor Operators and make profits to line their own pockets, does Mr Zaqy then think that non-profit Anchor Operators are lining their own pockets with profits as well. That is my first question.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Yee, you can seek a clarification from the Member but not enter into a debate.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Madam, I am clarifying the points he made about my speech.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, seek a clarification; put your question to him.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: The second question is that Mr Zaqy is in the private sector. Does he not believe that competition in the private sector drives innovation and competitive pricing? And why does he feel that the Anchor Operators should be protected from competition? If they are able to provide high quality and value, then they should not be afraid of competition.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: In response to Mr Yee Jenn Jong's clarification, first and foremost, I was not referring to your adjournment Motion. I was referring to your speech. The questions were directed exactly at your speech asking whether we should make all childcare operators public and not just subsidise the Anchor Operators. Secondly, I think the Anchor Operators today have a special function, in that they are targeting and helping the lower income segments. But whether the criteria is something that we have to go by, it is something I believe in, it is up to Ministry to decide, I am not in that position to decide on the criteria.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: Since Mr Zaqy was not referring to my adjournment Motion, now that I have told that my adjournment Motion called for the same conditions and criteria to apply to private operators if they wish to be considered as Anchor Operators, does he think then if it is all right for them to be considered? And if they make profits, whether the Anchor Operators are also similarly making good profits?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I think the Member got me wrong. When I said Anchor Operators, I did mention that they also be charity organisations. And the criteria if they are similar, they should be in a similar fashion in that they should be charity organisations and foundations as well. So, if they are private organisations, then I think it is up to the Ministry to decide whether it wants to consider them in the evaluation. I think it is up to the Ministry to decide whether the criteria are right or not.

But my personal belief – I did not say which criteria – I just said that we should have more Anchor Operators. I agree with the Member that competition is good but it is not just about competition among Anchor Operators; it is about giving that service to our citizens. At the same time, we have some leeway when we have charity organisations and foundations who are helping the lower income segment. So, it is not just about profit lining, but there is also a social objective that we are trying to achieve here with the Anchor Operators.

Mr Yee Jenn Jong: I would like to ask Mr Zaqy whether he believes that the outcome for the parents should be that they should have affordable fees, and that they should have good quality service. So, it does not matter whether it is provided by some non-profit operators with a social mission, or whether it is by private operators, as long as they can charge low fees, then is there anything wrong with that?

Mr Zaqy Mohamad: I think the Member is confused about what I am trying to say here. There is a difference between the Anchor Operator scheme and what MSF is trying to do in subsidising childcare. The Ministry is putting forth a lot of subsidies to ensure that childcare is affordable. To a certain extent, yes, we are trying to make childcare affordable for all families who qualify in Singapore. That is the end objective but the Anchor Operators also serve certain social objectives which we should also protect. But, yes, we should do more and I think we should increase the number of Anchor Operators if we can but I leave to the Ministry to decide on the criteria relevant.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Low Yen Ling.

4.37 pm

Ms Low Yen Ling (Chua Chu Kang): Mdm Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to take part in this debate. In Mandarin, please.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg xx.] Since the release of the White Paper "A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore", there has been strong reactions from the ground. I think this is a good phenomenon as it shows that Singaporeans are concerned with our future development and we love our homeland. If people do not care or give little or no responses to such important issues, then that will be a serious problem. Likewise, if a Government does not act in advance to study an issue of far-reaching impact and does not introduce a solution for everyone to discuss and debate in advance, then that is an indifferent and weak government.

During my walk-about last weekend, a resident shared this with me, "Introducing a popular policy is to please the people but proposing an unpopular policy needs a lot of courage".

( In English ): The Population White Paper has thrown up key questions on our nation's identity, psyche and desires. There is worry of how Singapore may change even as our national identity is being shaped. The pragmatic Singaporean in all of us acknowledges that the Government has to plan ahead to deal with the double whammy of a low birth rate and an ageing population. However, the prospects of having more people and increased competition for resources naturally trigger red alerts. Weighing heavily on the minds of many are questions on social costs and the impact of the White Paper.

At this point, I would like to ask for Members' indulgence and courage to consider with me how some of the future challenges, related to the economy and an ageing population, could be mapped. For if we could re-invent ourselves, perhaps we could really avert the possibility of a 6.9 million population in 2030 where only 55% of the population are Singaporeans. I would like to suggest three key ideas for your consideration.

One, re-defining prosperity. The conventional vision of social progress through endless growth has indeed come under increasing scrutiny across the world, according to Prof Tim Jackson from University of Surrey. Jackson, who is also economics commissioner on the UK government's Sustainable Development Commission, argues that economic growth may not infinitely deliver lasting prosperity. Instead, we need a more coherent vision of prosperity. This is especially so in the wake of the Eurozone problems and the anaemic US recovery. To him, "Prosperity, in any meaningful sense of the term, is really about the quality of our lives and relationships, about the resilience of our communities, and about our sense of individual and collective meaning."

Is the desire for "wholesome" growth what Singaporeans want? We are now all experiencing a post-material age where youngsters tell us that they place work-life balance above economic gains. Discussions about the White Paper have posed soul-searching questions on what constitutes success, happiness and growth. Could "prosperity" for Singaporeans take on new meaning? The London-based public policy body, Legatum Institute, has created a unique "Prosperity Index" that assesses national prosperity based on wealth and well-being. Its prosperity indicators are economy, entrepreneurship opportunities, governance, education, health, safety and security, personal freedom and social capital.

Are some of these factors the values that Singaporeans associate prosperity with? As Our Singapore Conversations take place, perhaps we can ask participants for their views on what "prosperity" means to each of them and collectively. For instance, could "prosperity" mean having more time to make babies and watch them grow, but perhaps for each and every one of us with less pay and opportunities? And if this were so, would Singaporeans be ready to accept a slower or even no growth in the future? Or even the possibility of fewer jobs?

Two, the second point I want to raise is about reviewing the model of engagement. We all know jobs are crucial to any country. The urgency to attract investments and high-value jobs into Singapore has always kept us on our toes. We need Singapore to stay relevant, globally competitive and attractive to investors, MNCs, SMEs and entrepreneurs. New growth areas and nascent industries offer good potential and high value jobs to Singaporeans. However, due to the nascent stage of these industries, specialised skills are required. This leads to such companies broadening their search for talent beyond Singaporeans. For example, Manufacturing Integrated Technology, a company dealing in solar energy, revealed that its biggest obstacle was not business costs, but the shortage of talent. In The Straits Times article on 16 January 2013, the company's CEO said that "the firm is sorely lacking qualified engineers". While 80% of this company's workforce is local, the company had to tap on foreign manpower to fill a 20% gap.

Are we the victims of our own success? Perhaps it is time for us to consider re-calibrating the forces of demand with the supply of our local talent pool. The high-value jobs created by investments coming into Singapore are creating a demand at the nascent stage that our locals find hard to meet. The White Paper recognises this gap and has tried to plug it by allowing businesses to hire foreigners. But over time, the use of foreign manpower to kick-start new growth areas may blunt our workforce.

So, can I suggest that we consider opening up programmes like the EDB's Strategic Attachment and Training Programme (STRAT), which trains workers for emerging industries, to allow these vacancies to go to mature and older workers too, especially those workers from related industries, for example, from semi-conductor to solar energy industry and not limit them to only school leavers or younger workers? Knowledge transfer needs to take place more quickly and more nimbly. Furthermore, could we also consider having the economic agencies hard wiring into our incentives for companies – the key criteria of hiring a set number of Singaporeans – in order to qualify for Government assistance?

I recall that in a forum organised by NUS and the Europe Union Centre last December, Acting Minister for Social and Family Development Mr Chan Chun Sing highlighted that many of our work processes are still designed for employees in their 20s to their 50s. They do not currently take into account many years of experience that mature workers can contribute to the workforce. I hope the Government, the various agencies, can consider factoring in such considerations as it reviews the kinds of businesses and industries that Singapore will pursue and continue to develop in the future. And this leads me to my next point which is age-ism.

Third, whether we like it or not, age-ism is found throughout the world. In fact, today's media and the modern culture worship beauty and youth. And this has really spilled over to businesses and the workforce. We need to fight the onslaught of age-ism, and, in fact, middle-ageism – and encourage a new mindset that embraces what maturity can bring to a society and an economy. This is a big challenge that all stakeholders can come on board to tackle – the Government, businesses, communities and individuals, every one of us.

Can we improve public perception of mature workers, uplift their image and increase the level of respect that they command and deserve? The launch of the "re-employment" ads by the Tripartite Committee on Employability of Older Workers is a good start but we have to do more. We cannot afford to lose this window of opportunity as our workforce gets older every year. Currently, the Government has job re-design assistance and schemes like ADVANTAGE! and the Special Employment Credit to encourage companies to hire older workers.

However, there still appears to be gaps in expectations and skills that are required. In Bukit Gombak, I have met residents from 40-plus years old to 60-plus years old, who want a job but find it hard to secure one. They often wonder if this is due to their age or a mismatch on their part or that of the employers'. If our present industries are not able to re-employ or absorb older Singaporeans fast enough, could we pursue or even develop sectors specifically for our mature and older workers?

To this end, can I suggest that the Government consider setting an example by launching active recruitment drives and fairs for mature workers on a regular basis? MOM and WDA can work with Ministries and agencies to review and draw up available positions with roles which are suitable for mature workers. For instance, in the areas of healthcare, eldercare, childcare and even social services – these are the new growth areas that need to ramp up capacity, we all hear. They have huge demand for manpower. So, in these sectors, can we consider identifying or even re-designing specific jobs in these sectors that are well suited for mature workers? This should be work that should not be physically demanding, but it also should be work that will draw upon our mature Singaporeans' strengths. In fact, they have very extensive life experiences. Jobs like healthcare or administrative assistants, carers for the elderly, nannies or childcare edu-carers, or even counsellors, social service jobs. These are possible roles for our mature Singaporeans.

Just as attitudes towards mature workers need to change, our mature workers' perception of jobs like the ones that I have mentioned also have to change. If they can be persuaded to see the intrinsic value of these jobs, these positions can actually become a vocation for them, much more than just a job. Through these work, they can form an important network of support for the sick, young and elderly, thereby strengthening our community with their collective wisdom.

We are all standing at an inflection point where hard questions on Singapore's future and population plans are being asked and deliberated. Besides current models of development, what are some other areas that could provide the boost that is needed for Singapore's future? I feel and I can see that there are clouds of hope along the way.

In fact, the global centre of economic gravity has moved to Asia. Singapore remains in a strategic position in Asia to capture the opportunities emerging from this area. Besides China and India, the Southeast Asian economies are gaining traction and opening up with great potential. As such prospects brighten, the external wing of our economy can further expand, as we intensify our support for Singapore SMEs to go overseas.

Singapore is also amongst many countries facing the double whammy of a low birth rate and rapidly ageing population. We are not alone in this problem. And we all know necessity is the mother of innovation. So, as the ageing phenomena intensify globally, new models and novel solutions may spring up. At present, Singapore has good fiscal, financial and institutional resources to help us tackle these issues.

What we need now is a good measure of courage, 勇气. Courage to answer hard questions. Courage for "hard talk". And courage is what I think this Government and Singaporeans have. For much is at stake. For the sake of our future and generations to come, let us all not shrink from making hard choices. Let us move forward to face off the enemies of anxiety and re-assert our strength and that is the Singapore gumption and fortitude to beat the odds once more. On this note, I support the amended Motion.

4.50 pm

The Minister for National Development (Mr Khaw Boon Wan): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion standing in the name of Deputy Prime Minister Teo, and further enhanced by Mr Liang Eng Hwa through his proposed amendments.

Last week, a friend of mine who buys 4D regularly told me that the number "6569" was hot. In Hokkien, they say " ang-ji ", "red hot". I asked her, "Why?" She said, "Don't you know, Government says 6.5 million - 6.9 million people." That is how she has distilled the two heavy documents into one single number!

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 Members have conveyed their very strong sentiments that 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 overcrowdedness, still insisting on planning for a growing population?

Deputy Prime Minister Teo has explained why. Basically, we have a severe crisis heading our way. Our Singaporean 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 go away. It will still be there and, if anything, it will become more serious and may become not soluble.

This is not a theoretical construct. This demographic crisis confronts every country and Japan is a live example because it is ageing the fastest. As Members heard from some speakers before, we will be 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 there.

But Singapore is not like Japan because our city is our entire country. So, lack of opportunities in Singapore means our young must go overseas to look for them. And this will not be good for the young; this will not be good for the old who will end up having 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 the seniors happy and well-engaged.

The approach and the choices we make today to address this coming 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 this is a moment in time when all of us need to use both our heart as well as our head. It would be irresponsible of us otherwise. And that is why we have tabled the two Papers, so that we can have a full, honest and open debate to keep our people informed and to hear diverse views.

We are alive to the present unhappiness over the crowdedness in Singapore, especially in transport and housing. The congestion we experience today is real. Deputy Prime Minister 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.

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

As I speak, around 200,000 homes are being built. They will be ready during the next four years. One hundred ninety seven thousand five hundred and fifty nine new homes by 2016. "197,559" – I think my 4D friend will know what to buy. That is not all. We will continue to launch more BTO flats, more 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.

To complete the ramped up construction programme, I do need more construction workers, more than currently available. And that is why yesterday I was shocked when I heard Workers' Party's recommendation that we freeze the foreign worker population, immediately and for eight years. That is throwing a spanner into my building plan. I will not be able to deliver the new flats as promised to 200,000 families.

On behalf of these families, I ask Workers' Party: please rethink your idea and your approach. Please spare a thought for them. They are our people, fellow Singaporeans too. And many of them are making plans to quickly have the keys to their homes so that they can set up family and have babies. Please do not disrupt their plans.

Anyway, I have ramped up BTO supply to about 25,000 flats per year. That is a lot of flats, because 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 the first-timers.

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. And once we have cleared this backlog, we can easily extend the scheme to married couples without children. Parenthood Priority Scheme can then morph into Pre-Parenthood Priority Scheme. It is still PPS in acronym. This will affect the not-yet-married couples, but not too much because of the huge number of ramped up new flats to be launched.

In short, young Singaporeans – please, do not worry. There will be 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.

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, do not 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.

Let us 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, you can see we have kept the BTO prices steady, even though the resale prices had risen. Similar observations can be made in other non-mature estates.

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. And, if necessary, we will do more.

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 the 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.

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.

We have always taken pride in our high quality of life. Singaporeans travel and they have seen how other people live, in Hong Kong, in Shenzhen in Shanghai, in Tokyo. Singaporeans know that we are a little red dot, we have no mountains and we have no 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.

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

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 360 km, as we progressively develop the Round Island Route.

As you know, I have been cycling. 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 wanted the park connector to provide a truly seamless, pleasant experience. It is not quite so yet for some of the routes. By now, I have cycled about half of the 180 km. And there are some routes where, as I said before, it is really " teruk ". You have to carry your bicycles, up the bridge, and cross the highway. It is very troublesome. But we will improve on that. And by 2030, at least 85% of all residents will find a park within 400 metres of their homes. Where possible, we will infuse our tall buildings with lush vertical and rooftop greenery.

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 but, overall, we will maintain about 9% of our land for parks and nature reserves. This is highly significant for a small urbanised city. 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.

Third, we can justifiably take pride in our public housing programme. It is truly the 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, please take a walk – I will 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, the open spaces and recreational facilities. The common green area in each precinct is centrally placed, at the foot of the HDB blocks, so that residents can have wonderful views and direct access to the greenery. They are also 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.

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 centres 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.

So, 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, multiplied by 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 – Singaporean architects – who come to tell me how impressed they are with the Punggol North plan. The planners are now working on Tampines North, Bidadari and Tengah, which will incorporate fresh ideas for better living. They will be awesome.

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 to 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, the 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 must 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 or urban farming.

We will also actively involve the local residents in the planning. As one recent example, Tampines is planning its Tampines Town Hub. And People's Association (PA) 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, ideas and dreams. Some of the suggestions are included in the final design by the architects and this is the right approach.

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 our 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.

Public transport, especially trains, is a big ticket item, requiring multi-billion 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, clinics, playgrounds, schools, childcare centres, parks, barber shops, and so on to be available to serve our residents soon after they move into their HDB flats. Physical facilities we can build. That is 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.

Madam, the current mismatch in infrastructure provision and overcrowding has been painful for Singaporeans and for us, 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 that level. However, for long-term planning, I think it is safer to prepare enough land and infrastructure for a larger number.

Madam, after my open heart bypass surgery, my doctor requires me to do regular biannual heart stress tests on the treadmill. You see, my resting pulse rate now is 68 beats per minute. It is almost athletic but not because I am athletic. It is because of my medicine. For my daily exercises, the physiotherapist requires me to pump up my heart, but not to exceed 125, and to sustain it for at least fifteen minutes, which I do daily. As Members know, I am a very disciplined chap. This should hopefully keep my heart in good condition. For the biannual stress test, the doctor requires me to pump the heart up to 165 beats per minute; 165 is way above my daily exercise 125. But this will enable the doctor to check how my heart functions at a heightened stress level. If my heart functions well at that heightened level, then presumably I should be okay for normal activities.

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. Frankly speaking, nobody knows, nobody can tell what the world will be like after 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. Creating more space will provide them with such options.

Many agencies are working together 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 to create the southern waterfront. 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.

Mdm Speaker, the Marina Bay District which everyone can see is the eastern extension of our CBD. The development is far from complete. We are probably halfway there but you can already see the transformation effect it has on our city, on our downtown and on Singapore. The southern waterfront will be the western extension of the CBD. The CBD, the eastern wing, the western wing and together offer scope and opportunities bigger, greater and much more than Marina Bay. It is an exciting – or as the young people like to say "awesome" – vision, 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.

Our long-term options include expanding our underground space and the uses within. Some of these options are still costly. But I respect technology, there is bound to be technology breakthroughs in the next few decades. As a first step, we will carry out a geological survey to understand better our underground rocks and their suitability.

Recently, I went underground. I visited the Jurong Rock Caverns, at 130 metres below sea level, not quite to the centre of the earth. It provides very good storage spaces for liquid hydrocarbons; it frees up valuable land; many hectares above ground. But what else can we do underground?

I am chairing an inter-ministerial "underground" committee to study and coordinate underground developments. It will be totally legal, do not worry. We will try to maximise opportunities for Singaporeans going forward.

Mdm Speaker, two very substantial documents are being debated in Parliament. Many pages, much data, many statistics, but they are not about numbers. They are all about us, our future, 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.

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

Our parents and my generation, we all slogged hard because we were poor and we wanted a better life for our children. We have no work-life balance; we had no work-life balance; we still do not. In fact, we did not even know of such a concept then. We made sacrifices so that our children can have a better life.

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 the demographic challenges are not dealt with properly, our children will suffer. We cannot simply pretend that these challenges do not exist. We cannot simply pass them to future generations to deal with. I think that will be totally irresponsible and it is certainly not our style.

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; it is us, Singaporeans; who are at the centre of our planning, centre of our 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 two Papers. Please read them closely and see for yourself [ Applause ].

5.24 pm

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): Mdm Speaker, since the White Paper was released last week, most debates, discussions and commentaries, in the print or social media, and even coffeeshop talk, have been defined by one number – 6.9 million. That figure represents a population size that is 30% more than what we have today.

When this figure was released, a very natural response from Singaporeans was to find a way to relate this to their own experiences. So, people will naturally draw from their own memory, from their own encounters in the crowded train, the traffic jam, the long wait for the HDB flat – and wonder what it might be like if it were to be 30% worse. And they would then conclude that it would not be a very pretty picture.

That picture, however, has formed the backdrop of the various debates and discussions which have been going on. Population is an emotional topic and has been for many years, an issue which the Government has grappled with many times in the past. Previously, Singaporeans have been asked to stop at two. Later, it was to have three or more if you can afford it. Singaporeans accepted them. Then there was also the Graduate Mothers' Scheme which was not quite so well accepted.

The proposal in the White Paper is an altogether more challenging one. We live on a small island with limited resources. We have just come off the back of an unprecedented population growth fuelled almost entirely by immigration. Singaporeans feel crowded out, and indeed we have been behind the curve in terms of aligning the relative growths in foreign workforce with housing, transport and other infrastructural needs as Members have just heard. The Government has been working very hard to address these concerns, but that still remains very much a work in progress. Yet, we are now being asked to endorse a plan that could see us share that limited space with more people, many of them foreigners, such that the Singaporean citizen population drops to 55%.

I think, in that context, Singaporeans are entitled to ask some very hard questions about this proposal, and I think the answer lies in finding the right emotional balance between the different competing interests which are at stake for Singaporeans. Let me elaborate.

The White Paper has identified a clear problem with our declining TFR and an increasingly ageing population. We are amongst the world's best in terms of a low TFR – not a record we should be proud of. Our ageing population is ageing at a rate faster than even Japan's.

Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang): So, there is no doubt that we have to address this problem, although it is not a problem which is unique to Singapore. It is a global phenomenon – also called the "Ageing Century" by some commentators. Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, they all have the same problem. Many countries in Europe have the same problem.

But unlike these other countries, we have no natural resources to count on, to weather slow or negative economic growth which impact income gains and ultimately the standard of living that we will enjoy.

On that score, let me comment on the first balance which we have to find – which is economic growth. GDP growth is not, and cannot be, the end game. We cannot use GDP growth as a starting point and then work backwards to see what kind of a population resource we might need to sustain it. Equally, however, it would be wrong to pretend that economic growth does not matter, or that we should just work out what kind of economic growth, if at all, a declining population can yield us, and then just be happy with that.

No, we should plan to achieve a judicious growth rate that would be sufficient to sustain our economy, keep income levels up and improve our overall standard of living. Singaporeans all want better jobs. Those who have a job want their jobs to be secure and stable, with good promotion prospects. We want a good bonus at the year end. We want our children to be able to find good jobs when they come into the job market. Do we all not? All of this depends on having good strong employers who will stay in Singapore, run a stable, viable business and operate in a competitive and vibrant economy.

Take Japan as an example – an economy that has been dulled over the years by an ageing population and an almost cultural aversion to immigration. Businesses have moved out and unemployment rate has reached an all time low in 2009.

In his speech, Deputy Prime Minister made the point about the sale of adult diapers out-stripping baby diapers. Another example – in 1994, the number of males in Japan eligible for the national defence services – that is, aged between 18 and 26 – stood at about 9 million. As at 2010, about 16 years later, this figure dropped to 6 million, a 30% decrease over 16 years. What does that say about its other workforce? Which brings me to my second point of balance – that of immigration.

Sir, this is a most delicate balance because it affects every Singaporean directly on a daily basis. The front page headlines in yesterday's Business Times best illustrate, Sir, how difficult this balance is. The main headline reads: "Several foreign firms prepare to leave S'pore", but the headline just below says, "Thinning Singaporean core troubles MPs". We cannot fully satisfy both concerns.

This aptly reflects the dichotomy which, to borrow Deputy Prime Minister's words, the White Paper seeks a "judicious balance" of. If we tighten too much, our businesses will suffer – as amply demonstrated by the Business Times headline on Tuesday. You will also just have to look at the immediate reaction of the Singapore Business Federation in response to some of the Workers' Party proposals in Parliament yesterday to know that this is a matter we cannot afford to strike a wrong balance on. This could well set us on a road that Japan has taken, but minus the buffer which their natural resources give to them.

So, I agree that we have to be open to immigration to shore up our workforce. I myself do not see any other choice. We could be more selective, more discerning in deciding who we allow in, but it would be wrong to shut it out or keep it constant as the Workers' Party has suggested.

But at the same time, we have to strike the right balance when doing that. The White Paper has proposed a significant slowdown in foreign labour and I agree with that. But even at this reduced rate, I would caveat that topping up our population with immigration is an easy option and we cannot let that mask our fundamental problem which is that of the declining TFR, which I will address a little later.

In some ways, using immigration to arrest a declining workforce population is a bit of a textbook solution because many other countries are doing likewise. But we have to be careful.

First, can our physical infrastructure cope? Not in a few years' time but now. More housing, more transport options, more hospitals are being planned, but these will take time. Can the pace of these developments keep pace with the number of foreigners coming in?

Second, just because other countries are doing it does not mean we should do too, at least at the same rate. We ought not comfort ourselves with living density numbers and comparisons because we cannot easily compare ourselves with these other countries simply because Singapore is small with no natural hinterland. We are not like people in London, New York, Tokyo or even Hong Kong who can choose to live elsewhere in their own country if one city becomes too populated. We cannot. This, and only this, island is our home.

Third, we must never compromise the Singaporean heritage and identity. Too much immigration over a sustained period would weaken it. Our Singaporean Core is rich in diversity and multi-culturalism. We are not xenophobic, but integration and assimilation are not uniform and never achieved overnight. Being Singaporean is not only about having the same colour IC, but rather, it is about having built up a collection of shared experiences and having a commonality of ideals and goals. This takes time to nurture, and it has to be done each time a potential new citizen lands on our shores.

In addition, we have to be careful not to rely only, or even substantially, on immigration. If we do get to 6.9 million in 2030 and we still find ourselves short, where then would we go?

Hence, immigration cannot be seen as a long-term solution. The root problem of a declining TFR has to be fundamentally addressed. In the nature of things, TFR cannot be turned around overnight; and even if we are to be successful, we will not see the effects until around 2035 at the earliest. Hence, for the short to medium term, whilst we find a solution to improving the TFR, we will need immigration to supplement our resident and workforce population.

The truth is that we do not want to get to 6.9 million, let alone get to that number by having more foreigners, which will dilute the Singaporean population core. That is what I understood from Deputy Prime Minister when he says, and I quote, it is his "hope that… our population will not reach 6.9 million".

But at the same time, should we plan for it now? You heard Minister Khaw a few minutes ago. Of course, we should. It is only prudent and sensible. We will take time to plan, develop, to build and we should do it now when we are still a vibrant economy, do it now ahead of the curve with time and with a buffer to spare.

Coming back to what we should do for the Singaporean Core of the population. Other Members in this House have spoken at length about it – the twin objectives of improving our TFR and eliciting more productivity out of the untapped economic resources, especially in mature workers, something that the Member Ms Low Yen Ling has touched on very eloquently earlier. I will not go into those points again, save to emphasise one key point.

I think we all agree that we do not want to be in this House again in 2030, having the same debate over the same problems. I think if that happens, we will be in serious trouble.

The only way we can be sure we can avoid that is to grow the organically Singaporean population. Deputy Prime Minister himself says that this is, and I quote, the "best and most fundamental way". Minister Grace Fu yesterday emphasised that marriage and parenthood remains top priority for the Government. I agree but I think we can and we should do more. In fact, I think we have to pull out all the stops on this one because that is the one strategy that, if we get right and are successful at it, will cut away at the population problems which we now face, and, in the longer term, will alleviate our reliance on foreigners for labour.

We have had the Marriage and Parenthood Package since 2001, with the latest instalment coming last month. That is good and it gives young expectant couples a leg up. But we must recognise that the decision to start a family is not just about financial incentives or rewards or even parenthood leave. The entire parenthood eco-system and the infrastructure for bringing up children have to be reviewed and encouraged – not just about the availability of childcare centres or Foreign Domestic Worker levies, housing, education, work-place environment ethics, reforms, changes to tax structure and so on.

I think we are in urgent need of a transformational change to the way we promote fertility rates. The Marriage and Parenthood Package can only take us so far. I would propose that the Government considers setting up a specialist committee tasked specifically to look into revamping these measures. Go well beyond the present paradigm. A starting point could be to study the Swedish family policies. I know there is a different dynamic there and a different ethic consideration but in Sweden, family policies are placed as a priority and are co-ordinated with educational and flexible labour market policies. There must be something in it, because in a declining European TRF, Sweden is the one country that has consistently maintained a healthy TFR over the years.

We should not only go out of the box on this one, but perhaps break up the old box and build a new one.

Sir, I will end off with one last point. This is an important debate on a policy which will affect all Singaporeans up to 2030 and beyond. This House has been asked to endorse the White Paper, and I fully agree with the amendments which the Member for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, Mr Liang has made. The debate, however, should not end there, and I urge the Government to continue to consult and receive views, and refine the projections in this Paper, both Papers. It should be a dynamic process. The Government should continually review the implications of the policy not only in terms of the big picture, but also the small. Look at the picture through the eyes of the average Singaporean and what it means for him. It is only then that we can really strike the right emotional balance in our policies. Sir, on that basis, I support the Motion.

5.36 pm

Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the Singapore Story over? All nations face their own unique set of complex and intractable challenges. We, too, are at a crossroads where we as a people have to make some tough decisions. How we respond to these challenges, and how our leaders and the people rally together, will determine the future of the Singapore Story. This is what the White Paper is about – A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore.

As Singapore's second Prime Minister, my key mission was to Keep Singapore Going. Keeping Singapore Going includes growing the economy to improve the lives of Singaporeans. Why is the economy important? Because it means jobs, food, homes, clothes, schools, medical services, roads, trains and all the necessities and niceties of life. We pay attention to economic growth in order to create good jobs for fresh graduates and school-leavers, provide security for workers, accumulate resources to subsidise housing, health care and education, help the lower income Singaporeans through schemes like Workfare, and save for the future. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is an economic indicator to sum up the economic activities within a country. Pursuing GDP growth is a means to get a good harvest for Singaporeans. It is not an end in itself. The bigger the GDP, the bigger the harvest.

To Keep Singapore Going is like perpetually rolling a huge boulder up a mountain side. We have no natural resources and it is our fate that we have to keep rolling it to survive. But as we near the proverbial summit, the slope gets steeper, the air thinner and the boulder heavier.

Singapore faces some very serious challenges which the Prime Minister and his team must tackle. They include:

(1) Meeting the higher expectations of a well-educated young generation for better jobs, promising careers, affordable housing and comfortable lifestyles.

(2) Meeting the needs of the burgeoning older generation, in particular, their medical, social and financial needs.

(3) Preventing the citizen population and workforce from shrinking in the next decade and raising the Total Fertility Rate.

(4) Overcoming our physical space constraints.

(5) Coping with slower growth as the economy matures, even as demands to increase social spending grow.

(6) Reducing our reliance on non-resident workers.

(7) Keeping the Singaporean identity alive and not becoming a minority in our own country.

(8) Defending ourselves as future cohorts of combat-fit NSmen would be much smaller than today's.

I read the White Paper as the Government's attempt and strategic plan to find solutions to surmount our constraints of space and the limits of an ageing and shrinking citizen population.

In short, it is about sustaining our growth and prosperity, so that the young can pursue their dreams, the seniors can grow old with dignity, parents can raise families, and everyone can enjoy a comfortable life.

Regarding population size, I, too, am not sure about the idea of having 6.9 million people. Many Singaporeans cannot imagine how that can work, when their daily experience with 5.3 million people is of crowded trains and buses. It is good that Deputy Prime Minister Teo has reiterated and reassured all of us that 6.9 million is only a planning parameter and not a policy target.

What the optimal, stable, long-term population for Singapore should be is a legitimate question, a very important one. What proportion of citizens and foreigners should be in the population is also another important question to resolve. But this is not the time for us to resolve this. We should further debate this in the future.

But for now, let us not be fixated on the population figure in the White Paper. Instead, we should decide if we agree with the broad approach laid out in the White Paper. These are: (a) changing to a lower gear in our economic growth, (b) a calibrated slowdown in expansion of the non-resident workforce, and (c) extensive construction of infrastructure and affordable housing to meet the needs of the still growing population.

Continual economic restructuring is one of the enduring features of the Singapore Story. Since the Economic Strategies Committee released its recommendations in 2009, the Government has moved to enhance productivity and to wean businesses off cheap and easily available foreign labour, and with increasing urgency in the last two years. It is clear that we have brought in too many immigrants for our infrastructure to cope and for Singaporean society to integrate. The Government has recognised this and has taken steps to put things right.

The Government's calibrated approach on reducing our reliance on foreign workers is realistic. Like weaning babies off milk, it has to be done gradually. Going cold turkey with foreign workers is traumatic. The White Paper seeks to strike a balance, with the interests of Singaporeans and businesses in mind. A reduced inflow of foreign workers will complement the impetus to raise productivity. Our businesses must adjust, and the Government will help them make the transition. Those which are structurally unable to adjust may have to rationalise their operations. Some may have to relocate. Affected Singaporean workers must be helped.

Members would have noted the letter from the AustCham and eight other chambers of commerce in yesterday's papers on their members' concern about the more restrictive inflow of foreign workers. I know that foreign businesses in Singapore are watching our debate and our next steps closely. We should take the views of these chambers seriously and weigh their interests against our need to restructure the economy and depend less on foreign workers.

I applaud the Prime Minister and his team for their courage and leadership in tabling this paper to sketch out the next chapter of the Singapore Story. The politically expedient alternative would have been to leave the issue to his successor to tackle.

But that is not the responsible way to govern Singapore. My experience in Government has been to be upfront with Singaporeans, face the unpleasant facts and work together to overcome problems and crises. Prime Minister and his team did the right thing by laying out the problems, the trade-offs and our options in a transparent manner so that all Singaporeans can become more aware of our demographic destiny, debate it and build consensus on the way forward.

Indeed, as a people, we have come together and weathered successive tests of our unity, resolve and resilience. I remember the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, SARS in 2003, the September-11 terrorist attacks, the discovery of a terrorist cell in Singapore and recently, the 2008 sub-prime crisis. I remember the anxiety and uncertainty of Singaporeans during these crises, and the tough decisions we had to take to overcome them. I remember most of all the fear in Singaporeans as SARS took its toll on the lives of Singaporeans and our economy. Our hotels went almost empty. But I also recall the courage and sacrifice of doctors, nurses, taxi-drivers, grassroots leaders and a host of front-line staff, and how we all pulled through together as one people.

In all of these crises, the critical success factors were the leadership of the country, the bond between the Government and the people, our unity, our trust and support of each other. In those crises, people could see and sense the immediate danger. We instinctively came together to tackle issues head on. We knew we would otherwise be worse off. We weathered the storms, emerging stronger from each.

The White Paper is the Government's plan to forestall an impending crisis. Forestall an impending crisis. But unlike our previous crises, our demographic challenge unfolds imperceptibly over one or two decades like a slow, sinking ship. Yet it is urgent, in that we need to decide how to act now to right the ship.

That is the difficulty for the Prime Minister and his team. They have to think long term. They can see the population pyramid becoming unstable. They can see the silver tsunami coming. They can see the economy deflating at some point in the future. They fear the Singapore ship will sink.

But it is perfectly understandable that many Singaporeans worry more about the present than the future. They feel the effects of over-crowding, competition for schools and jobs, high home prices, and the large numbers of foreigners most keenly. They want these pressures to be eased now.

While we debate intensely the domestic implications of the White Paper, we must also remember that Singapore exists as part of a dynamic, competitive and constantly changing world. Singapore is a price-taker in international economics and geopolitics, and always will be. We are sandwiched between the economic powerhouses of China and India, and other fast-growing economies.

Whether we can continue to attract companies to provide good jobs for Singaporeans, and whether we can continue to shape international developments to our advantage, is contingent on Singapore remaining vibrant and successful. If our institutions are not forward-looking, our economy flat, our society divided, Singapore will not be able to punch above its weight. It will lose its lustre and influence. Why would others invest in Singapore and in Singaporeans if our house is in disarray and we cannot solve the big problems confronting the country?

These are tough, fundamental challenges which the Prime Minister and his Ministers will have to resolve. They will have to do this not only intellectually and logically, but also emotionally and sensitively. They will have to dispel people's current and future fears, win their hearts and minds, while planning a better life for them.

Let me conclude by setting out my position on the White Paper in unmistakable terms.

One, I endorse it. I am reassured that the population figure of 6.9 million is a planning parameter and not a target.

Two, I support the calibrated approach in slowing down the growth of the non-resident workforce.

Three, I support building the physical and social infrastructure to ease the present crowdedness.

Four, we should read the White Paper together with the many programmes that the Government has rolled out and is still rolling out to meet the needs of different segments of the population. All these taken together, they form the strategic plan to move Singapore to the next level and make lives better for all Singaporeans.

Lastly, the challenges we face concern all of us. They are not just the headaches of the Prime Minister and his team. They are not just the headaches of the PAP. They are also the headaches of the Workers' Party and every Singaporean. On their own, the Prime Minister and his team cannot resolve them. They require us, the Members of Parliament, and the people, to work with them. This means sharing our views and ideas with them, and forging a consensus on the way forward.

Singapore has succeeded only because of the courage of our leaders and people to face challenges squarely, and because of our will to succeed and our ability to work together to overcome issues of survival. This is the only way for us to ensure that the Singapore Story can continue. I support the amendment moved by Mr Liang Eng Hwa to the White Paper. On this note, Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the White Paper.

5.52 pm

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh is a difficult act to follow [ Laughter ].

In the aftermath of the 2008 global financial fiasco, the editor of Newsweek International observed that the crisis had demonstrated one thing: that democracy has a genetic defect – it emphasises the current, usually at the expense of the future. Intuitively, we recognise this. So, while politicians often speak eloquently about promises of the future, they know what really matters is that they must deliver on the real and tangible issues of the present. And policies are often driven by this reality.

Singapore is not immune to this genetic defect. And it would be foolish to think that we are different.

However, when we were a young nation, we showed strong resistance to it. When former Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew said that the Government was going to transform Singapore from a swamp to a gleaming metropolis, not many believed it could be done. The key was that Singaporeans allowed the Government time and space to embark on its vision, to effect medium and long-term strategies – on the economy, housing, transport, health and so on. And Singaporeans took a leap of faith with the Government and were rewarded for doing so.

Did some Singaporeans suffer as a result of these policies? Some clearly did. Take, for example, land. In order to build housing and hospitals, roads and rail network, industries, the Government acquired property from Singaporeans. And this included farms and business premises. Some were dislocated, lost their homes, their inheritance, even their livelihoods. And I still have some residents who complain bitterly about this today. We can understand why they were all unhappy. But is there any doubt that these measures were necessary and have benefitted the vast majority of Singaporeans? I think few would argue against it.

Today, we are the beneficiaries of these long-term policies, of this long-term strategic thinking and of the hard work of the previous generation, many of whom are not alive to enjoy the fruits. But it is also common for people to view the past with rose-tinted glasses. Despite the current and legitimate unhappiness about over-crowding, high property prices and such, we are today far better than our parents' generation. All the objective facts show that education, home ownership, employment, wealth and household income, quality of life, health and longevity – all point to a better standard of living for Singaporeans today.

But today, we are also an older society – less resistant to genetic defects. The current has become as important, if not more important, than the future. The White Paper is very much about the future. But its acceptance by Singaporeans will depend very much on how we deal with today's problems. That will determine if Singaporeans will give the Government the time and the space to re-shape the future like they did in the past.

So, to persuade Singaporeans to come on this journey, we have to do two things: (1) we have to paint a full picture of the future for Singaporeans, highlighting both the good and the bad; and (2) we have to give Singaporeans confidence that the Government will be able to address the challenges of the future.

Chief among these challenges are the questions of over-crowdedness and the advantages of being born a Singaporean.

Some in this House and many outside have questioned the numbers and assumptions in the White Paper. They say that the Government has over-stated the problems of the elderly to working adult ratio, that we have not done enough to boost productivity and birth rates, and that the elderly can retire later and work longer.

But frankly, we are all crystal-ball gazing. No one wants to hit 6.9 million people. Every Member in this House wants a stronger core of Singaporeans. Everyone supports the Government building ahead of demand. We all want TFR measures to work so that there will be less dependence on foreigners. Future technology and advances in healthcare may well help our seniors remain active and productive longer. Other innovations and mechanisation may reduce our dependence on unskilled labour. Technology can change life dramatically in the next 20 years, just as it has done in the last 20 years. But the problem is, no one here can say with certainty about what will happen.

The issue is, therefore, not 6.9 million, 6.5 million, or who can assert a more acceptable number. Numbers will change over time as circumstances change, as assumptions are either confirmed or debunked. However, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo said, we have reached a turning point and we have decisions to make today about what we do about our future as we see it today. And we have to take the next leap of faith.

The issue is, therefore, one of trust and confidence.

The Government has done the right thing to talk about the future and show its vision of it. It has stuck its head out and is prepared to take the blows. As Deputy Prime Minister Teo said, it is far more politically convenient to do or say nothing. There are many who have written that the Government is politically naive for issuing this White Paper. But the question is, would Singaporeans be better off if the Government had kept silent? And would you trust a party that ducks difficult questions?

No one can predict the future, and, as Minister Lui said, it is difficult to visualise how the future will look. So, we do what comes naturally – as people, we project what we see today as a basis of what will happen in the future. And the problem is that many Singaporeans do not quite like what they see today.

The White Paper plans for a "good quality of life". But that means different things to different people. To most Singaporeans, day-to-day issues weigh most on their minds. So, how will the building of new MRT lines and housing make our lives better if we are, at the same time, growing the population? Will the added capacity only be sufficient to cater to the increased population? In basic terms, will Singaporeans have to wait longer, shorter or the same time for their flat or the next train? Or is it the case, as in Alice in Wonderland? Are we running as fast as things move, so that we can stay on the same spot?

The distinctions between Singaporeans and foreigners must also be carefully reviewed, as this is a matter which will have growing significance as the Singaporean Core diminishes. How do we deal with the issue of PRs not doing National Service, as Mr Inderjit Singh raised yesterday? How are we going to ensure that jobs which Singaporeans are ready, able and willing to do are not given to foreigners? How do we help our children secure places in good schools and universities? How do we ensure that foreigners do not speculate and drive up property prices, and put it beyond the reach of Singaporeans? Essentially, how do we ensure that those with no skin in the game do not walk away with all the prizes?

We need to address these and other difficult questions now. If we do not, few will trust that the Government will get it right in 2020 or 2030. That is why I support the amendments proposed by the hon Member Liang Eng Hwa as they put the issue in better context, better perspective.

Just as important, we should not mislead Singaporeans by simply telling them what they want to hear. It is easy to discount projected population figures by a million or so, and then say that the workforce shortfall will somehow be made up by foreign brides and productivity, then we can simply decide how many percent of GDP we want, as if we can push it with a magic machine, and then we can all live happily ever after with lower growth. There is a difference between a vision and a fairy tale. We have to compare something with something, and this debate will not be advanced or served by comparing Singapore, as envisioned in the White Paper, with something that only exists in fiction.

Singaporeans are best served by details, not posturing. And I do not mean simply throwing numbers around. Let us deal with the real effects on real Singaporeans. For example, what will low growth mean to employment opportunities for young Singaporeans? All around the world today, youth unemployment is increasing at alarming rates. The ILO 2012 report puts "Youth Unemployment for Developed Economies and the European Union" at 18% in 2011 and about the same this year. In Spain and Italy, as of July 2012, youth unemployment was 52% and 35% respectively. This is because businesses are not investing or growing, and cannot absorb the many young people who are graduating from schools every year. Why do some assume Singapore will be different? Businesses in Singapore will not invest and expand if labour is tight and growth is low. To say that we can have the same growth as other mature economies is no answer as it ignores the problems that these other economies have today.

This is not about having good GDP numbers, but having a future. Having a job makes a world of difference to a person and his family. If you have no job, no prospects, no hope, everything else is pretty much moot.

What about other effects? Will we have to pay more taxes? What will it mean to our retirement age? Will we have enough workers in essential services, such as domestic, health and geriatric care, and construction to meet the additional infrastructure and healthcare services we need? These are important to the daily lives of Singaporeans.

Under the Workers' Party plan, there will not be enough, and it is a pipe dream to believe that Singaporeans alone will make up the difference. These and other questions have to be answered if there is to be a credible alternative or, at least, a meaningful debate. It is not enough to simply say that there has to be "structural changes". It is clearly not enough to say you empathise with local SMEs, which you kill off with your plans, and then say it is for the Government to find a solution to help them. It is also not intellectually honest to suggest that shareholders will suffer and Singaporeans will not, when what we are dealing with are Singaporean owners, Singaporean employers, Singaporean employees, Singaporean shareholders – all Singaporeans supporting the Singaporean families in Singapore.

Ultimately, we are engaged in this debate because we want all Singaporeans to have a better life and future, and to help Singaporeans understand and deal with the realities on the ground. We should not be distracted by numbers, nor should we use numbers to distract.

I hope the Government will deal with the issues of today and give confidence that it will be able to solve those of tomorrow. New plans and programme initiatives are good, and we have heard many from MND, LTA and so on. All these are good. All these are something to look forward to. But Singaporeans need to see them work and feel their own lives improve. That, I believe, is the only way to ensure that Singaporeans will take the next leap forward with the Government.

6.04 pm

Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Judging from the number of speakers who have indicated their intention to speak on this Motion and the numerous feedback and strong reactions from many Singaporeans, this is undoubtedly a very important and emotive issue, which directly or indirectly impacts the lives of many, if not all, Singaporeans.

This year marks the 48th year of our independence. We have come a long way since then. "From Third World to First", by our Minister Mentor, most adequately described our transition from 1965 to today. We have grown our GDP from $1,580 in 1965 to $63,050 per capita. Along the way, our population has grown from 1.9 million to the current 5.3 million. We have, over the last few years, experienced the effects of this growing population. In fact, today, we have come to a crossroad in our national development. To address this conundrum, the Government has released the Population White Paper for discussion.

However, the Government's Population White Paper on "A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore" was released at a very interesting time when many Singaporeans are still adversely affected by the rapid increase in the population over the past decade. Many netizens have mocked at this timing, accusing the Government of being insensitive to the ground sentiments and also being detached from the concerns of common Singaporeans.

I have also received numerous feedback and comments from friends, grassroots leaders, colleagues and residents. The majority has expressed apprehension and skepticism about the intent and feasibility of this White Paper. Many are fixated by the figure and have cried foul over the 6.9 million projected population.

In fact, when the news of this projected population was released, I was taken aback too. My heart tells me that this cannot be true. I then asked myself, "Is the Government serious about this projected figure? Is our infrastructure able to accommodate so many people? Will this be cast in stone, with no room for discussion?" With the current population of 5.3 million, Singaporeans are already feeling the strain of over-crowdedness. Many Singaporeans will not be able to fathom the impact of having another 1.6 million people in this small island nation.

Many Singaporeans are worried about the day-to-day inconveniences of rushing and squeezing into the MRTs and LRTs, waiting for the next available bus because the previous one was too crowded to admit another one more passenger and having to watch where one is walking when shopping along Orchard Road.

Young Singaporeans are also worried about the affordability and availability of homes while older Singaporeans mull over accessibility of healthcare services with the projected increase in the population. It is already a common occurrence of long waiting times at hospital emergency departments and specialist clinics, and near full occupancy of inpatient beds at several restructured hospitals.

With the projection of 6.9 million population, would there not be more competition for jobs and school places? Will the transport infrastructure be able to cope with this increase in population?

Let us also remember that, at the same time, Singapore attracted 13 million visitors in 2011 and, in 2012, we welcomed more than 1.1 million visitors to Singapore every month. By 2030, this figure may increase even more. In fact, with the added number of visitors, we would surely experience more strain in our infrastructure and living experience, especially at tourist attractions and recreational facilities.

Yet, one of my biggest fears is that we could be oversimplifying the solution to the population and ageing issue, by issuing 15,000 to 25,000 new citizenships to stop our citizen population from shrinking. This, in the short run, allows the working population base to remain constant and to support the ageing population. However, I wish to highlight two major drawbacks with this recommendation. Firstly, there is nothing that will stop immigrants who come to Singapore and swear their allegiance to this tiny nation from moving to another greener pasture. This is especially so if we are unable to remain attractive to these immigrants. Secondly, there is a high possibility that these immigrants who settle down in Singapore will want to have their parents migrate here as well. This is especially true for one-child families from China as with our safe environment, many will want to bring their elderly parents over and care for them in their silver years. I am sure many of us have received similar requests for Long Term Visit Passes, permanent residency or citizenship for these family members at our weekly Meet-the-People Session (MPS).

The White Paper says nothing about this trend and this could actually exacerbate our problem with the ageing population. Ridiculous as it may sound, we are now holding a double-edged sword. On the one hand, we need new immigrants to maintain our edge, productivity and economic growth; yet, on the other, they may very well contribute to the woes of an ageing population. While the immigration office can exercise strict admission criteria, is it ethically or morally right to disallow the parents of our new citizens to relocate to Singapore, especially when the new citizens could be the only children of these elderly parents?

The White Paper has emphasised that one of the core pillars would be to make Singaporeans the core of the nation. How are we going to do that when the eventual proportion of Singaporeans in 2030 is only 55%? Will there be a dilution of the Singaporean culture and way of life, thereby losing the Singapore identity?

As I ponder more and start to study the details of the White Paper, my head took over from my heart, and I began to rationalise and understand the intent better. What if the Government decides to freeze population and workforce growth altogether? How is Singapore going to tackle the twin challenges of a rapidly ageing population and a low total fertility rate?

Rationally, everyone will agree that the status quo of rapid growth will not be possible. On the other hand, what kind of Singapore will it be in the next 10 to 20 years if the Government were to limit our population to the current 5.3 million?

As our post-war baby boomers turn 65 years old from 2012 onwards, Singapore will experience an unprecedented age shift. Over 900,000 baby boomers, more than a quarter of the current citizen population, will retire from the workforce and enter their silver years. Come 2030, more than 20% of our population will be above the age of 65.

Currently, the total number of working-age citizens to each citizen aged 65 and above is 5.9. If the current TFR remains with no immigration, this will decrease to 2.1. This declining old-age support ratio will inevitably result in an increased burden on the productive part of the population to support the economically dependent. There will also be a smaller workforce with a less vibrant and innovative economy, resulting in fewer job opportunities. As the Deputy Prime Minister had alluded earlier, many young people may then decide to leave for faster growing, more vibrant cities, hollowing out our population and workforce. This is already happening in many European countries such as Greece and Spain.

To put it simply, the burden of supporting the society will be heavier and this will be borne by our children and grandchildren. To put it bluntly, our children and grandchildren will have to pay higher taxes, unemployment rate will likely increase, and many may even have difficulty looking for a good quality job in Singapore and decide to venture overseas to make a living. Is this what we are ready to accept as a trade-off for a less populated Singapore?

This White Paper sets out the long-term roadmap for Singapore's population policies to address our demographic challenge. Let us take a step back and ask ourselves this question: why would the Government put up this White Paper for debate when it could have just succumbed to popular demand by curbing the growth of the population? Would this be the responsible and right thing to do? Would we not be shortchanging our children's and grandchildren's future? Whether the eventual projection be 6.9 million, 6.5 million or 5.9 million, the hard truth is that Singapore needs to grow both economically and in total population to ensure our long-term survivability.

Twenty thirty is a long time away. Does it mean that we should sweep it under the carpet and leave it to the next generation of leaders to manage?

Besides looking at the projected population demographic profile, the White Paper also outlines the Government's policies to maintain a strong Singapore Core, create jobs and opportunities and build a high quality living environment for all Singaporeans. Thus, it is not just about growing the population, but a holistic approach to build infrastructure ahead of what is projected, create the necessary climate for job creation and, ultimately, making Singapore a more liveable place – one we are proud to call Home.

To give an analogy from my own personal experience as a doctor, many of my patients are young children and many consult me because they need treatment for their medical conditions. Unfortunately, many of the treatment modalities may not be the most pleasant experience for the young patients. For example, for a child suffering from advanced retinoblastoma, or cancer of the eye, the treatment entails enucleation, or surgical removal of the entire eyeball, followed by chemotherapy. These are difficult and painful decisions for the parents, but absolutely necessary to ensure survivability of the patient. As a doctor, I will have to explain the benefits and potential side effects of the treatment.

And as responsible and loving parents, they will have to decide what is good for the child, even though the journey to recovery may be filled with challenges. Of course, whenever possible, the doctor will have to think of ways to mitigate the sufferings and to make the patient more comfortable. What is critical is the trust between the doctor, the parent and the child.

Similarly, the covenant between the Government and its people lies simply on that trust. The people or "U" remains the centre of the word "trust" and this trust will only be complete when the Government and the people or "US" remain side by side, in our walk towards nation building.

Having heard the statements of Deputy Prime Minister Teo and many other Cabinet Ministers, I am heartened that the White Paper takes as guiding principles − to build a strong Singaporean Core so as to sustain the heart of our nation, that we need to continue to meet Singaporeans' hopes and aspirations and that Singapore must continue to be a home for all Singaporeans. White Papers are tools of participatory democracy, not an unalterable policy commitment. White Papers are used to perform the dual role of presenting firm Government policies while at the same time inviting opinions upon them. It serves to test the climate of public opinion regarding a controversial yet important policy issue and enables the Government to gauge its probable impact.

Indeed, what I have just painted are valid concerns from the ground. As we strive to achieve the goals laid down by the White Paper, I hope the Government will be able to provide answers and solutions to mitigate the projected growth of 30% of the population by 2030.

I would like to remind all of us here that in our national pledge, we pledge to be, I quote, "One united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society, based on justice and equality, so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." These ideals reiterated in the pledge have since formed the fundamentals in which we approach nationhood and nation building.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with the principles behind the White Paper on population. The numbers are something we must discuss and decide on. We need to build strong families, we need to meet the hopes and aspirations of Singaporeans and we need to make Singapore a quality home for all. In doing so, let us look to fulfil not just prosperity and progress, but also happiness. After all, we pledge to achieve happiness before prosperity and progress in our National Pledge. Let us perhaps look at how Singaporeans can remain linked and connected to Singapore, not just by ensuring that the tangible aspects are available, but also the intangible, emotionally and mentally. The White Paper must move away from just figures and projections, and do more to address the experience of living, the experience of being Singaporean.

I hope the Government will ensure a high quality of life for all Singaporeans, leaving no one behind. The ultimate goal must always be creating a Singapore for Singaporeans, giving priorities to Singaporeans in terms of job, education and housing. To build a Singaporean Core, we must not give up in our continuous endeavour in encouraging and incentivising Singaporeans to get married and procreate. We should not simply turn to the easy quick fix solution of immigration alone.

Supporting the call from hon Member, Mr Liang Eng Hwa, I urge the Government to quickly address the many hot button issues of infrastructural deficiencies, escalating property prices and the high cost of living. These are issues that Singaporeans are facing in our day-to-day lives. This would give Singaporeans the assurance that the population roadmap laid out in this White Paper is sustainable.

In conclusion, I would like to remind Members the parable of the Boiling Frog. The Boiling Frog story is a widespread anecdote describing a frog slowly being cooked to death. The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will instinctively jump out. But if it is placed in cold water that is progressively heated up, the frog will not perceive the danger and will be boiled to death unknowingly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore is at a very important crossroad in our demographic evolution. We do not want to be like the frog in the parable, deceived into thinking that our lives will remain good and cushy, like relaxing in a warm jacuzzi bathtub. It will be extremely irresponsible to think that everything will be fine in the next 10 to 20 years, if we do nothing or little to address the issues facing us. With that, I support the amended Motion.

6.20 pm

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines): Sir, many of the forward-looking proposals in the Population White Paper are practical and well-meaning. I welcome the assurance from our Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and various Ministers that the projection numbers are just that − projections − to ensure that our infrastructure investment is sufficient for keeping Singapore as one of the most liveable cities in the world. Hence, I support Mr Liang Eng Hwa's amendments which clarify this paper in the right perspective.

This is the first time a White Paper has been presented and debated to plan and prepare for a high quality living environment as Singapore's demography changes. Previously, similar issues have been presented in various Concept Plans.

With help from the United Nations, Singapore's first Concept Plan was formed in 1971 to guide our land planning for the following 20 years. In 1971, we had a population of 2.1 million. A major review of the 1971 Concept Plan was undertaken and completed in 1991. It stressed quality, identity and variety when planning for a population of 4 million. In 1991, our population was 3.1 million. Another review was completed in 2001 based on the "long-term population parameter of 5.5 million". The Concept Plan was not specific about when we were projected to reach that number. At that time in 2001, we had reached 4.1 million people. A mid-term review was conducted in 2006 and the long-term population parameter was raised to 6.5 million in view of population trends and economic developments.

Today, many Singaporeans have expressed concerns, even unease, over the White Paper's projected population of 6.9 million in 17 years. I do not think there were such intense reactions in 1971, 1991 and 2001, when the respective figures were projected. If we look at the percentage increase of the projected figure against the existing population at the point in time, it was 29% in 1991, 34% in 2001 and 30% now in 2013. These increases have been quite close. There are probably a few reasons why we are hearing the sentiments today.

Firstly, the pace of increase is getting quicker. The White Paper is referring to 17 years from now. Most people see ourselves still around to either enjoy the better environment, or suffer the bigger squeeze for common space and opportunities. Whereas in 2001, when the projected increase was the highest at 34%, it was over a period of 40 to 50 years. Even I wonder if I would be around in 2050. However, the pace of development in the world is quickening. The Prime Minister has been very upfront in admitting that the Government did not have 20/20 vision over the last decade. It is, indeed, getting more difficult to plan really long term as the world, including Singapore, will experience many and more frequent changes in future.

Secondly, people are also questioning if the population increase is the way for continual growth. A 12-storey block was considered a high-rise building in the 1970s. Now we have flats at the 50th floor. I am sure technology will allow 100-storey blocks to be built en masse in the future. We can live higher up, we can go underground, we can reclaim more land. However, is there a limit to how many can live in our little island state? There is a fundamental question about the growth or sustenance model for Singapore.

Thirdly, this topic is particularly sensitive now when people are finding it difficult to board buses and MRT trains, when people are not getting their HDB flats soon enough, when people are waiting longer times for medical appointments. People just cannot fathom that things will get better before the grand vision of the 2030 materialises.

Sir, that is why it is extremely bold – and some may even say foolish – for the Government to want to subject itself to full scrutiny by laying down its cards to try to explain itself and take up the uphill task of convincing the populace. It could have chosen to be silent on the projection number or the timeframe. It could have just rolled out the grand plans for the new nature spaces, new MRT lines, new housing estates to make everyone happy.

However, Singaporeans today want greater transparency; they want to express their views and want their voices heard. This is what an educated population and a more mature society expects. This is the process that we are going through now and we have to go through it. It is appropriate to put forth projection figures for further discussions and debates. It is a move in the right direction since we want to encourage more active citizenry and participation from Singaporeans. Only this way can we collectively decide our future and make conscientious choices between trade-offs. Let us keep an open mind, understand the issues at hand, accept the constraints and face the challenges as we have as a people, both for our generation and future generations.

Sir, the Government has been building more flats, roads, rails and hospitals to accommodate the population which has grown significantly in the past five years. It will take a couple of years before Singaporeans can feel the full positive impact of these investments.

We should consider only increasing the inflow of foreign workers to close the urgent infrastructural gaps in the next few years, while constraining inflow in other sectors. We have to ensure that our citizens feel that the Government has truly listened and forcefully acted on their concerns on housing, transport and healthcare before increasing the foreign worker population further.

Singapore must also continue to increase our citizens' birth rate. I especially support the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package proposal of giving Singaporean couples with children first priority in new HDB flat applications. These are the types of changes that would play a material role to help parents beyond baby bonuses and subsidies. I would like to propose a modified version of a suggestion I made during the Budget debate in 2011 that I think would encourage Singaporeans to not only have babies, but more babies.

Parents are naturally anxious about their children's education. While I do subscribe to the notion that "every school is a good school", I can understand that some parents would have preferences for certain schools for various reasons. I am more worried that now, for some popular schools, their student profile is far from being representative of the general population.

I would like to suggest that, on top of the current criteria defining the different phases of Primary 1 registration, we accord priority for registrants with one or more siblings. For example, if the child has one sibling, he would be eligible for Phase 2B, and, if he has two, he can register at Phase 2A, and maybe, for those with three or more siblings, Phase 1 priority is given. This will also encourage parents to have more babies earlier, before their eldest reach seven years old. In support of intact families, the child and his siblings must have the same parents.

Sir, on immigration, I would also urge the Government to refine its approach in emphasising academic qualifications and financial ability. We all accept that anyone wanting to be a PR or citizen of Singapore should be contributing to the nation and not add to the social burden. Singapore should be better off with every new migrant.

At the same time, we are aware of the negative sentiment against PRs and new citizens who have more resources or better capabilities and are competing with locals for school places, scholarships, jobs, cars and properties. While I do not advocate a protectionist mindset to shelter people from the realities of competition and erode the values of determination and hard work to strive for a better life, Sir, our immigration policy sometimes does come across as being cold-hearted and too pragmatic.

A policy should also address the needs of fellow Singaporeans who yearn for a better life and this is where the heart of the Government needs to come in. As an example, I would like to call for the Government to be more sympathetic towards foreign spouses applying for PR or citizenship, which I will now elaborate in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ) : [Please refer to Vernacular Speech on Pg xx.] At my Meet-the-People sessions, quite a number of residents would ask me to help their foreign spouses to apply for PR or citizenship. Most of them are middle-aged, lowly-educated blue-collared workers, some without fixed incomes. This group of Singaporeans is fully aware that they are not very eligible and have difficulties getting a girlfriend. Some of them even gave up the idea of getting married and were prepared to remain single and lonely for the rest of their lives. In recent years, more and more people tried to look for spouses in neighbouring countries. Just like any other men, they just wanted to have a companion to grow old together with, to raise children or to have someone to help them take care of their elderly parents.

These women, usually from neighbouring countries, come from poor background and have few opportunities of getting good education. They also have poor career prospects in their home countries. Thus, they choose to leave their home country to search for a better life and marry a Singaporean spouse. In a way, they are quite similar to our forefathers who decided to move southwards to settle here many years ago. In my interaction with them, I find that they are typically good wives and mothers. Even though their husbands may be much older, they are willing to go through toil and hardship with them.

However, these couples discovered after getting married, even after registering their marriages in Singapore, that the wife could not reside in Singapore permanently. Last year, the Government launched the LTVP+ scheme which allows these foreign spouses who have Singaporean children to stay in Singapore for three to five years and enjoy similar medical subsidies as PRs.

This is, indeed, a piece of good news. But they are still quite nervous, as LTVP+ is not permanent. Such families are not eligible for rental flats and receive less subsidies from the Government when they buy resale flats. Even if they receive the same medical subsidies as PRs, MOH cut the subsidies for PRs in October last year, six months after the Government introduced LTVP+.

For various reasons, many of these Singaporean men and their foreign spouses will not be able to reach the required education and income levels for their PR or citizenship applications to be approved. So, even though they have started a family and want to settle down in Singapore, they are not able to do so. Do we want to see such families fall apart? Or do we want to add salt to the wound when they already have financial difficulties to deal with additional expenses for housing and medical fees?

I, therefore, urge the Government to help such citizens who have not managed to keep pace with and benefit from the country's progress, by amending our immigration policy. Perhaps, we could make it easier for them to apply for PR or citizenship for their foreign spouses. The policy could look into details, such as it must be the Singaporean spouse's first marriage, or the applicant has to reside in Singapore for at least three years, or undergo an interview to assess the applicant's sincerity and commitment.

In addition, the Government should help these new brides integrate into Singapore. For example, we can host free or low-cost workshops or courses to help them learn to get along with their in-laws from different cultural backgrounds, to understand the social habits and customs in Singapore, to master English or to participate in community activities.

( In English ): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like now to move on to the topic of productivity. The White Paper asserts that productivity growth is increasingly harder to achieve. Yes, it is hard, but this means that we must increase our efforts to improve productivity so that our economic growth is not so dependent on foreign labour. To address worker shortage in labour-intensive sectors, we must support companies in re-designing job scope and work processes. There would always be some companies in each sector that would not be able or choose not to invest in the necessary technology or revamp their work processes to boost productivity.

We should also ensure skilled manual jobs, such as those involving tiling, electrical installations and plumbing, to be seen as desirable occupations for Singaporeans. We should support the formation of professional guilds like those in Germany, which will enable more Singaporean skilled workers to have access to upgrading opportunities and certification to enhance their productivity. Yes, the services they provide may cost more but the quality will be much higher.

I am heartened yesterday to read The Straits Times featuring young hawkers, or what they call hawkerpreneurs who have tertiary qualifications but have chosen to carry on their family business or start a venture in the humble food business. This is even more relevant as local hawker food is such a big part of our culture, heritage and Singapore identity. To be honest, food court dishes prepared by foreign workers just taste different. Ingredients may be the same but the flavour has changed.

We can also do more to reduce our dependence on foreign domestic workers by providing more affordable, accessible and accredited childcare, student care and eldercare centres. By depending less on foreign domestic workers, our children will also have the opportunity to be more independent and contribute towards household chores.

The trend of outsourcing skilled labour work to foreign workers must change. Singaporeans can and should be encouraged and incentivised to take up skilled labour jobs with higher productivity and pay.

Next, Sir, I would like to provide another perspective to the assertion that our senior citizens will result in a less vibrant economy. Some have termed the demographic shift as a silver tsunami.

Our senior citizens contributed to the development of Singapore. It is fitting and proper that we have helped many to be financially independent through the CPF scheme and HDB flats. We should have programmes to help our seniors understand how to better manage their finances. We should implement viable healthcare programmes, support companies in providing tailored work for the seniors and protect our seniors against age discrimination at the workplace.

Our seniors must not be seen as just a burden on our economy. Focusing on the old-age support ratio overlooks the fact that our seniors are also supporting working age Singaporeans. Many grandparents take care of their grandchildren, prepare meals and look after the household. Only with these grandparents can many parents focus on their work, knowing that their children are being taken care of by the best care-givers.

Our seniors form a silver oasis, not the frightening silver tsunami. Their sharing and passing on of culture and values to the younger generation is priceless and enhances social cohesion. They are like a spring of fresh water and life that makes the desert greener and cooler. Senior citizens could also be a target consumer market segment for businesses and industry development. With better education, affluence, financial planning and health, the elderly of 2030, myself included, will be a different breed to possibly support a new pillar of the economy. As an aged society in a few years' time, Singapore can also be the test-bed for geriatric innovations.

Sir, the White Paper does not elaborate on how we may have to invest to prevent social cohesion wearing away, given a smaller proportion of citizens over time.

In 2030, out of 100 people in Singapore, only 55 will be Singapore citizens. The other 45 people will be foreign workers and we will have a younger profile to ensure our old-age ratio remains stable. Even as we pick and choose the profiles and skill-sets of the foreign workers to suit Singapore's changing requirements, we need to ensure Singaporeans in these sectors do not have their wages artificially depressed from an unfettered inflow. We must also ensure that all lower income foreign workers are treated with respect and dignity when they are in Singapore, as this is the right thing to do.

However, a 55:45 ratio of citizen to non-citizen would have significant impact on our social cohesion. Singaporeans are still in the midst of adjusting ourselves psychologically and emotionally to having more foreigners amongst us. I have received feedback from many residents that they feel uneasy, somewhat displaced, with a growing sense of insecurity due to the rapid influx of foreigners.

Strengthening the Singaporean Core with a significant inflow of foreign workers from many different countries is challenging. Many of our foreign workers come from countries with longer histories and will assert themselves in daily interactions with Singaporeans. It is inevitable that misunderstandings and conflicts will arise from differences in social values, cultural norms and living habits.

Our norms and values which many Singaporeans hold dear and expressed during Our Singapore Conversation are part of our national identity. The need for stronger social cohesion is especially important so we can be confident that our capable and mobile Singapore citizens will choose to stay in Singapore even with a prolonged period of economic recession. We do not abandon our family members because of hard times. Therefore, our investment in infrastructure must be matched by our investment to enhance social cohesion.

Sir, a friend shared with me recently his adaptation of a 1968 speech by Robert Kennedy on GNP growth, which he feels encapsulates the angst many Singaporeans feel about the White Paper and the pride they have about Singapore. I quote:

"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross domestic product − if we should judge Singapore by that − counts increasing expensive housing and cars, and more air conditioning to cool our shopping malls. It counts tuition for our children and the counselling services to comfort them. It counts the destruction of our mangrove swamps and the loss of our heritage buildings due to more high rise. It counts bankruptcy filing cost for those who lost everything in the casinos, and funeral services for those who lost their lives in senseless accidents. It counts Rolex watches and Prada bags, and the advertisements which promote material wealth in order to sell more branded goods to us.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the ties of our extended family and the strength of our friendships; the belief that all have equal opportunity to succeed or the integrity of our leaders. It measures neither our work ethics nor our respect for all races and religions; neither our shared grief nor our shared happiness; neither our compassion for the poor and disabled nor our devotion to national service; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about Singapore except why we are proud that we are Singaporeans."

Even as we debate the assumptions, assertions and projections, let us use this opportunity to refocus on why we are embarking on such a long-term planning effort. We want to ensure that Singapore is prepared for the future. In planning such a future, we must ensure that this future vision of Singapore is what our citizens will want to live in. We should also ensure our new Singaporeans know what being a Singaporean means and for them to be proud of being a Singaporean.