Committee of Supply − Head U (Prime Minister's Office)

Anti-corruption Outreach

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member): Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head U of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

Thank you, Sir, for giving me the honour of kick-starting the Committee of Supply debates. Incorruptibility has long been portrayed as a key facet of good governance in Singapore. This does not mean that corruption is non-existent but rather that corruption is not tolerated. The anti-corruption posture, that was an imperative for our early survival, remains vital in our quest for continued prosperity, social cohesion and a fair society.

We have become a brand name for trustworthiness and reliability, in addition to our long-standing reputation for efficiency and effectiveness. Singapore's relatively corruption-free image is promoted as an "X" factor − a key differentiator in giving us a competitive advantage. However, is the abhorrence with corruption a way of life for us? Is it in our collective DNA? Or is our anti-corruption reputation based more on rule compliance, deterrence and strong enforcement?

Sir, complacency is a threat which we must guard against in the fight against corruption. We perform relatively well in Transparency International's (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI), which measures the perceived level of public sector corruption in a country. We were ranked fifth least corrupt in 2011, behind New Zealand, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. In 2010, we were number one with New Zealand and Denmark. Between 2004 and 2009, we were ranked between third and fifth. We do not fare as well in the Transparency International's Bribe Payers' Index (BPI), which measures the perceived likelihood of companies from a selected country, in this case, Singapore, paying bribes abroad. In 2011, we were ranked eighth. In 2008, we were ranked ninth, twelfth in 2006, ninth in 2002, and eleventh in 1999.

The two transparency TI surveys suggest that Singaporeans and Singapore-based companies are better behaved in Singapore but were less likely to do so when overseas. Some of our largest business and trading partners do not fare very well on Transparency International's CPI and BPI. The maxim "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" appears to have traction with Singaporeans who do business overseas. Oftentimes, the convenient excuse is that there is no other way to do business in less well-regulated jurisdictions. The influx of foreigners and new immigrants into Singapore, some of whom may be used to a culture of buying favours, might result in their adopting similar practices here.

Sir, at the global level, the paradox of corruption is that its incidence and impact are increasing despite greater awareness of and action against it. With more Singaporeans and Singaporean businesses venturing overseas, they are often more exposed to questionable ways of doing business, including engaging in corrupt practices, as an expedient way of doing business. The clear and present danger of all these developments locally and overseas is that we might "import" such an expedient attitude into Singapore. When that happens, it means that such actions are regarded as part and parcel of doing business. This "desensitisation" of corruption is a slow disease. Corruption, it is to be noted, represents the dark side of trust – it is based on and sustains a perverse form of trust.

Page: 1621

Sir, in the modern regulatory state that Singapore is, the delegation of policy-making and its implementation is a growing phenomenon. The opportunities for self-seeking behaviour in the exercise of administrative discretion are potentially plentiful.

As such, I hope the Minister would seek to assure Singaporeans and the House that not only is the incidence of corruption low but that we are making good progress towards internalising an anti-corruption ethos, whether we are operating at home or abroad. I look forward to the Minister's response to the following specific questions:

(1) Whether there are plans for the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau to ramp up its public outreach and public education efforts to include our educational institutions;

(2) What are the current efforts and plans to ensure Singaporeans' attitudes towards corruption is not driven primarily by the fear of punishment?;

(3) That we move away resolutely from the premise that high salaries are necessary to reduce the temptation for engaging in corrupt behaviour; and

(4) Whether the public sector would promote ethical sensitivity as a key component of public-sector leadership.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean): Mr Chairman, Sir, the CPIB has a suite of initiatives to create awareness and educate students, Government agencies and businesses through its preventive education talks, visits, seminars and workshops. To combat corruption in the public sector, the CPIB works with other Government agencies to conduct regular anti-corruption talks, especially to new public officers and those whose work may expose them to opportunities for bribery and corruption. On average, the CPIB conducts 64 talks to Government agencies each year.

The private sector is equally important as it accounts for more than 90% of persons prosecuted for corruption in the last three years. The CPIB engages the business community, and the banking and financial sectors through talks and seminars, working with various organisations to come up with anti-corruption programmes for their employees and associates. And we will be happy to work with any companies or any business associations who seek CPIB's assistance.

The Ministry of Education helps to inculcate the values of integrity and responsibility in primary to pre-tertiary students by civics and moral education lessons, co-curricular activities and Learning Journey programmes. Since 1998, the CPIB has actively engaged secondary school and junior college students through the Learning Journey programmes. These help shape the perceptions and attitudes of young Singaporeans so that they will continue to reject corruption and promote a clean and corruption-free society. The CPIB also engages undergraduates at our local universities. Prof Tan may know that SMU students have been hearing directly from experienced CPIB investigators in their "Corporate Crime" and "Ethics and Social Responsibility" courses. The CPIB also collaborates with institutions, such as the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy and the Civil Service College, in their postgraduate executive programmes.

Besides publishing cases of interests for education and prevention purposes, the CPIB has also developed brochures and short anti-corruption video clips which are available on the CPIB website and YouTube. Corruption cases that have been successfully dealt with in Court are publicised to create general deterrence. In fact, I think the media takes a very deep interest in corruption cases and helps us to publicise them. This serves as good and timely reminders of the consequences of corruption.

Page: 1622

The Civil Service is governed by a Code of Conduct based on the principles of integrity, incorruptibility and impartiality which all officers are expected to uphold. And they must be fair and impartial in carrying out their duties and must not let personal interests influence the official decisions they make. The Code also includes specific requirements to ensure accountability and safeguard against corruption, for example, through annual declarations of indebtedness. The Civil Service College also emphasises public service values and ethos in its training programmes.

Over the last three years, the number of public sector employees prosecuted by CPIB has remained stable. They accounted for an average of 7.5% of the total number of persons prosecuted by CPIB in the last three years.

Mr Chairman, Sir, Singapore continues to have a reputation as one of the least corrupt nations in the world, as acknowledged by Prof Tan. Our Civil Service is recognised as effective and efficient, with a clear disdain for corruption. Our zero-tolerance approach to corruption in the public and private sectors can only work if Singaporeans continue to be imbued with the right values, and recognise that while corruption may be a fact of life, it is not our way of life in Singapore.

There are a number of factors which contribute to this. Good competitive salaries in the public sector are a key pillar, and I think we need to maintain that. But that is not enough. As Prof Tan has said, strong enforcement is necessary as well. We also require good leadership by example from the top, as well as a population which rejects corruption and does not accept any form of corruption at all.

Mr Chairman: Mr Seah Kian Peng, please take the next three cuts together.

Total Fertility Rate

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade): Sir, Singapore's Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has picked up slightly to 1.20. That it has gone up is good news but this is still way below the replacement level of 2.1, and certainly a big area of concern. Yet, Budget 2012 does not seem to have taken this into consideration.

Since the Baby Bonus Scheme started in 2001, almost $2 billion in Baby Bonuses have been given out. While it can be argued that the scheme did, indeed, have a positive impact, it is almost negligible. Since its inception in 2001 and enhancements in 2008, there has been no significant improvement to the declining birth rate. It has been shown that low fertility arises from factors which include more people remaining single, people marrying later in life, as well as having children later in life or even not having children. I propose efforts to tackle our low TFR focus on factors like these and less on quick fixes like bringing in young immigrants.

Indeed, there have also been calls from the public for help from the Government, to help make raising families in Singapore more affordable, like providing additional paternity and childcare leave, and building more subsidised childcare facilities and achieving a better work-life balance.

Page: 1623

Finally, given that the TFR for married couples is actually at 2.0, the Government and our social development network must find ways to encourage people to get married and stay married as well.

Paternity Leave

Sir, I move on to my second cut on paternity leave. First, let me declare my interest as a Board Member for the Centre for Fathering, a VWO. Today, I revisit a topic that I have been pushing for a few years - paid paternity leave.

We know the importance of the father's involvement in a child's growing up years, as Acting Minister Chan Chun Sing himself mentioned in a Conference for Social Service Practitioners in July 2011. Research has shown that children do better mentally, socially, emotionally and academically when their fathers are involved in their lives.

The opposite is true as well - fathers' absences are linked to higher rates of delinquency and psychological problems in the children. An AWARE-led survey conducted between October 2010 and January 2011 found that 91% of over 1,000 respondents wanted to have mandated paternity leave, ranging from at least six days to as many as 14 days. The survey also found that 75% of the fathers would apply for paternity leave to spend time with their children, if there was that option. Given that there is both reason and demand for paid paternity leave, I hope the Ministry can consider supporting my proposal for legally mandated paternity leave. In addition, the Ministry could grant the flexibility for parents to apportion their paternity and maternity leave according to their needs. In the 2010 COS debate, I had also suggested that the fourth month of maternity leave could be gender neutral that can be taken by either parent. This is something, I hope, the Government can consider; I know, not this year, but perhaps in future.

Sir, many companies, including the Civil Service, have given fathers day off. We all agree that allowing fathers to spend more time and build stronger bonds with their children is an important step to take in promoting cohesive and harmonious families. So, I urge the Government to consider legislating paternity leave. We start small – two days will do. It is a symbolic but important move.

2.45 pm

Sustainable Population Growth

Sir, I move to my final cut. Over the years, Singapore has grown as a nation, and even more so in terms of population. Indeed, figures from our Department of Statistics show that Singapore's population has increased by almost one million people in each of the last two decades! Of this, the number of permanent residents also seems to be decreasing, while the number of non-residents seems to be increasing in the last two years. By contrast, Singapore citizens' growth seems to be negligible.

Sir, my key question is: how is our population policy working out? I hope Deputy Prime Minister can give us an update on the plans going forward.

Page: 1624

Since the focus on population growth in the mid-2000s, our population has grown by about 800,000 inhabitants, but given that the bulk of this increase is attributed to the growing number of non-residents, how sustainable is this "population growth"?

In addition, the problem of land constraint is a very real one. From 1960 to currently, Singapore has reclaimed about 70 square kilometres of land. Is that sufficient, however?

And knowing that our population will likely increase by two million by 2030 and that the increase in land area might only be about another 100 square kilometres, is our target for land reclamation a realistic and feasible one?

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon): Sir, the Government has announced the use of 6.5 million population as the planning parameter by 2055 in Concept Plan 2011. We already have a population surpassing five million last year. Is this 6.5 million parameter still valid?

Given our limited land size of about 700 square kilometres and limited sea for reclamation, what is the optimal population size for long-term sustainability? Currently, we already have 3.2 million Singaporeans, 0.6 million PRs and 1.2 million foreigners. Can we maintain at the current level without further increases? Do we really need continual population growth? Without immigration, given our low fertility rate that is way below replacement level of 2.1, when will our population start to shrink?

With our low fertility rate, is immigration the only way to sustain our population? I notice that in this year's Budget, it did not address our low fertility rate issue. Has the Government given up on encouraging a higher fertility rate in Singapore? Can we do more to stem the outflow of 1,200 Singaporeans annually who migrated? And what is the Government doing to ensure sustainable population growth?

Increasing Total Fertility Rate

Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, containing the cost of living, and lowering workplace and career impediments to child-bearing and child-rearing are critical issues if we are to increase Singapore's flagging total fertility rate (TFR).

The expenses for parents are especially challenging during the first six years of their children's lives, in large part because of the high and increasing cost of childcare. This could be a discouragement to them having more children. The childcare subsidy should be increased from the current $300 a month for middle income working mothers. If the Government is willing to subsidise 90% of training fees for adult workers, including Permanent Residents, is it possible to increase subsidies for the care and education of our future Singaporean workers?

There should be increased support and strong incentives for employers to implement and maintain better work-life balance practices, including part-time work, flexi-work arrangements and telecommuting. Government support could come not only in the form of work-life consultancy assistance schemes, or grants for implementing work-life initiatives, but on-going tax incentives to companies that implement and maintain good work-life balance practices.

Page: 1625

Paternity leave of at least six days per new-born child should be introduced and legislated. Half of this should be funded by the Government and the rest by employers. This will allow families to bond together during the critical period after childbirth, and will also recognise the important role of fathers in sharing the responsibilities of infant care. All this could have a positive effect on birth rates.

Could we also look into less conventional ways of increasing Singapore's TFR, without compromising the values that Singaporeans hold dear?

Firstly, reducing the abortion rate. There are currently about 12,000 abortions carried out each year in Singapore, with the majority performed on married women .If more of these abortions could be avoided, it would naturally increase Singapore's birth rate.

Most of the reasons given for termination of pregnancies are due to financial or social reasons. Can we do more to ensure that pregnant women in these circumstances are given all possible assistance so that they may consider other options, like giving up their babies for adoption? If they choose to keep their babies, can they be provided parenthood benefit packages, even if they are unmarried? While having children outside of marriage should continue to be discouraged, the package actually benefits their children who are innocent parties after all.

Lastly, can all foreign spouses of Singaporeans be allowed to reside in Singapore and work to help support their families? Priorities should be given to their PR and citizenship applications, particularly if they have already Singaporean children. This will ensure the unity of the family and could encourage these couples to have more Singaporean children.

Marriage and Parenthood Package

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang): Sir, in last year's COS, I spoke about raising the fertility rate in Singapore. I think the Government can make it more affordable to raise children. I would like to ask PMO whether more support can be given to parents to encourage more births, given that it has been three years since the Marriage and Parenthood package was last reviewed and enhanced in 2008. Since then, the total fertility rate (TFR) has slipped from 1.28 in 2008 to 1.2 in 2011, although the total fertility rate in 2011 was higher than the record low of 1.16 in 2010. With this promising uptick, our population enhancement and procreation policies need to be improved. Can the Government study and review all factors that can convince our younger people who are seemingly too busy with work life and everything else to start families or to have more children?

It has been said that the birth rates are low due to the interplay of expensive housing, family insecurity, job insecurity and low real income, a stressful education system, overload infrastructure and reduced public space as well as shrinking flat sizes. Young people today worry about getting their flats and security of jobs since the economic cycles are getting shorter and the pressures of education for children in an increasingly competitive environment. Will PMO consider restructuring all Government benefits, eg, housing, monetary incentives, Edusave, even education policy as a whole and marketed to encourage young couples to get married earlier and have children earlier? Beyond fiscal measures, can the Government look into the broader areas of providing the younger generation with a greater sense of long-term economic security and improved physical conditions to encourage them to start families?

Page: 1626

Sir, I hope that policymakers have not given up hope that the TFR decline can be reversed. Statements made by agencies, such as HDB, about new flats being small because families are getting smaller, would only serve to be self-fulfilling prophesies. If we truly believe that marriage and parenthood are strategic to Singapore's future and interest, the Government must send the right signal and create the right environment to improve our TFR.

Singaporeans with Foreign Spouses

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, there are increasingly more cases of Singaporeans marrying foreign partners. Many of these couples find themselves faced with an uncertain future and frustration after marriage. Marriage to a Singapore citizen does not automatically qualify a foreigner for long-term stay or permanent residency upon marriage or even after they have children. Each application is evaluated based on its own merits, and many of these foreign spouses do not get to enjoy medical benefits, childcare, housing subsidies, etc.

Many couples do come to their Members and appeal for special waiver from the ICA to speed up applications for long-term stay or PR applications. In the long run, some of these marriages may breakdown. Does the Government have plans to provide greater support for these foreign spouses, given that there has been an increasing trend of Singaporeans marrying foreigners?

Secondly, I believe we need to tackle the frustration faced by these couples from the onset. Before they marry, it is imperative that they have a better understanding of the family support system, financial management and cultural differences here in Singapore. Let them learn about the various citizenship issues and what to expect for a long-term stay in Singapore.

With effect from September 2011, it is now mandatory for minor couples who wish to marry to attend marriage preparation programmes. The purpose is to help young couples better prepare for marriage. I believe such premarital counselling will be useful for Singaporeans and their foreign spouses. Can the Government consider extending options of premarital counselling services and marriage preparatory courses to them as well? If need be, can the Government also fund the counselling sessions and courses to encourage couples who wish to make use of the services to do so? In this case, I believe we can better prepare such couples to take note of the potential challenges they may face as a married couple. In this way, we will have better and more stable marriages.

Permanent Residency and Long Term Visit Pass

Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied): Sir, in a recent reply to a question on whether the Ministry would grant permanent residence more easily to the foreign spouses of Singaporeans, especially those who have children who are Singaporeans, the Prime Minister replied that there is no such automatic policy. The Prime Minister also said that the citizens who sponsored their foreign spouses for PR status may need to show that they are able to support them financially.

The length of stay and duration of marriage may be important factors to consider in the grant of PR status to foreign spouses, the condition that the citizen must first prove that they are able to support their partner is a bit unusual. This is because once their spouses become Permanent Residents, what is there to stop them from seeking employment? Even when these foreign spouses are on Long Term Visit Passes, they are allowed to work, as highlighted by the Prime Minister, in this Chamber.

Page: 1627

Perhaps, it is time to review this pre-condition. As long as these citizens are working and contributing to their CPF savings, the chances of their foreign spouses in getting a PR status should be based surely on the family nucleus, length of stay, duration of marriage and whatever undisclosed criteria that ICA may have.

It was reported on CNA that this Government has granted PR status to almost 168,000 foreigners from 2008 to 2010. It is anybody's guess how many of these PRs will eventually stay on, take up citizenship and have children. But, unlike the many PRs who are here mainly for economic reasons, foreign spouses of Singaporeans have every reason to make this place their permanent home because their partners are already deeply rooted here, to begin with. In my Meet-the-People Sessions, I have met a number of residents who are disappointed with the many rejection letters they received from ICA. Some citizens with foreign spouses and Singapore children have become disillusioned with the immigration policy. I can understand their frustration. On one hand, we want more babies and foreigners to grow our population; on the other hand, it is so hard for these Singaporeans to secure the PR status for their spouses even when they have children who are born Singaporeans. It is hard for Singaporeans with foreign spouses to live with the separation anxiety all the time. I urge this Government to review the immigration policy on foreign spouses with a compassionate and forward looking yardstick.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, just based on the past nine months interacting with residents and helping them file appeals, I have seen consistent requests by Singaporeans to appeal for either permanent residence or Long Term Visit Passes for their foreign spouses. For some of these applicants, they have made repeated applications and appeals over several years but to no avail. What is of concern is that a substantial proportion of these couples have children who are Singaporeans. But because of the inability of the foreign spouses to get either a PR or Long Term Visit Pass and, hence, the inability to stay in Singapore for longer durations, the family is spread apart, with the child or children usually living with their mothers who are more often than not foreign spouses. It pains me to see such young children growing up in a family that is not intact because of a policy that we have instituted. We ought to look beyond the Singaporean applicant's immediate financial contribution ability, and let us instead look at how his contribution can be realised through his Singaporean children who may not even have the opportunity to contribute to Singapore if we continue this policy the way we have.

I hope that the Prime Minister's Office can review this policy and consider relaxing the criteria for applications of PRs on long-term visit passes for foreign spouses so that we can allow more of such families to stay as an intact family unit.

3.00 pm

Residence Permits for Foreign Spouses

Page: 1628

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, in 2010, there were a total of 24,363 marriages. Of these, 6,176 were between a citizen and a non-resident. This represents over a quarter of all marriages in Singapore. In most cases, the couple would naturally expect that the foreign spouse would be allowed to live in Singapore and later start a family here. But it does not always work out that way. What happens in most cases is that the foreign spouse would be issued a social visit pass which can range from 30 days to a year. Some are even required to leave Singapore before their passes are renewed, or without assurance that it will be. Their applications for Permanent Residence will take a few years to be approved, if at all.

It is not a satisfactory situation. The problems are compounded because many of these marriages involve Singaporean men and women with low incomes. The new couples are uncertain about their future. Because ICA does not reveal the criteria for granting a visit pass or PR, the couple is never certain when it will be granted or at all. While foreign spouses can work on a long-term visit pass, they find it difficult to be employed because of their uncertain status. When the spouse is asked to leave Singapore and return to renew their passes, it adds to the family's expenses. The couple cannot buy a new flat from HDB because at least two people in the family nucleus must be citizens or permanent residents to qualify. As it will now take the foreign spouse longer to obtain PR, the situation will remain difficult for some time. If the foreign spouse is a lady, she will not enjoy subsidised medical care, and so it will be more expensive to plan and start a family.

Taken collectively, these factors create an imposing obstacle against such couples marrying, settling down and starting a family in Singapore. If we are encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, why make it difficult for them simply because they choose to marry a non-Singaporean? Foreign spouses belong to a very different category from the foreign workers the Government is trying to reduce our dependence on. In fact, they are quite the opposite because they are here not for commercial reasons but for the long term. They are also part of a national agenda we want to advance. We want more Singaporeans to marry and have children and deepen their roots in Singapore. Singaporeans who marry foreigners have the same hopes and dreams as other Singaporeans. The Government should help them make this dream come true, particularly those with low incomes and who likely have more limited options. It is in keeping with the "inclusive" theme of the Budget.

What are the reasons for our caution? Is it the fear of marriages of convenience? If so, this must be the minority of marriages, and surely this can be addressed differently. Our approach appears to be to flush out marriages of convenience by making it as inconvenient as possible for Singaporeans with foreign spouses. I hope the Government will do something to help. I suggest that instead of issuing social visit passes, we institute a more permanent pass for foreign spouses. For convenience, I shall call this the "marriage pass", not a pass of marriage. Under a marriage pass, the foreign spouse should be allowed to live and work in Singapore as long as the couple remains married. The marriage pass should allow the couple to purchase a new HDB flat, and entitle the spouse to subsidised medical care.

There are a number of advantages. It gives certainty to the couple. It makes it easier for them to own a home and start a family. And if administered properly, it will also enable the Government to grant fewer PR or citizenship and only to very deserving cases as the marriage pass is a viable alternative to foreign spouses in a genuine marriage.

Page: 1629

The concerns about sham marriages will in fact be reduced as the spouse's right to remain in Singapore will depend on the continuity of the marriage, and getting a PR is less assured. As a check against abuse, there could be various conditions placed on the marriage pass. For example, it could be mandatory that children born under the marriage would have to apply to become Singapore citizens. Also, where the couple have purchased an HDB flat, they could be made to disgorge the profits from the sale should the marriage pass be terminated, and the flat sold within a certain period. I hope the Government will consider the suggestion to make it easier for Singaporeans to marry foreigners.

Population Size

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Sir, there remain concerns among Singaporeans that Singapore is too crowded and cannot support a larger population without significantly compromising our standard of living. To alleviate concerns of Singaporeans, it would be helpful if the PMO could share what planning perimeters the current Government is working within in regard to Singapore's population of this Government's term from 2011 to 2016.

The Chairman: Mr Arthur Fong is not in the House. Mr Inderjit Singh.

Growing Population

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, the Government's population policy has created anxieties among Singaporeans. In fact, even new Singaporeans and PRs I have spoken with have expressed their concerns that the Government has increased the population base too rapidly. We all know the side-effects of an increased population especially in creating a strong integrated society. I have three issues to seek clarification on our population policy. First, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is his population size target and at what rate he expects to build the population through immigration.

Second, I am concerned about recent reactions, especially over the social media towards the new immigrants and foreigners here in Singapore. Singaporeans have always been welcoming especially since we are mostly second- or third-generation immigrants. So, the issue of integration is an urgent one and we do not want to undo the good job we have done in building a strong and cohesive Singapore society. Can the Prime Minister share with us the progress made on the integration front?

Finally, Sir, some of my grassroots leaders have raised a valid concern that many of our local Government scholarships, including prestigious ones, are being offered to foreigners and PRs. Like my grassroots leaders, I, too, feel that we need to reserve all major Government scholarships for Singaporeans, as is practised in many countries that we know of. We can have other categories of scholarships that can be offered to foreigners with clear requirements for them to become citizens if they take these up. Can the Prime Minister please comment on this?

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): Sir, the rapid population growth mostly by way of immigration in the last decade, has caused discomfort among our citizens. Singaporeans are unhappy about the congestions they experienced at public amenities like the trains and buses, the squeeze in housing demand due to inflow of foreigners, the competition in schools and workplaces and the increasing lack of space for themselves.

Page: 1630

In addition, Singaporeans are also concerned about the changing social make-up of our society as well as our ability to integrate the new arrivals. There are enough incidents at the neighbourhoods and at the workplaces to remind us of this. Last August, Singaporeans got heated up after it was reported that an immigrant family from a particular country objected to the smell of curry their Indian neighbours were cooking. More recently, the offensive remarks by a foreign NUS scholar also caused a stir.

The key question we need to satisfy ourselves with is whether Singapore is nearing its physical and social limits in terms of our population growth. Even with significant enhancements to our public infrastructures, how much more can our population grow in the next two decades? Are Singaporeans prepared for more immigration if we are not able to reproduce ourselves in sufficient numbers? Our population grew more slowly last year at 1.8%. What are the implications of slower population growth in Singapore? Our future population policy will impact every citizen in this country. This is one policy where the Government can be more forthcoming in sharing its plans and vision. For example, what was our projection of Singapore's population in 2030 or what will our population be like at steady state? I hope PMO can share and consult widely on this policy issue and work towards forging a national consensus among Singaporeans on this very important long-term issue.

Mr Teo Chee Hean: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to thank Members for their questions and suggestions. Let me start with a brief overview of changes in our resident population in the past year. In 2011, 30,922 babies were born to Singapore citizens, slightly more than in 2010. We also took in 15,777 new citizens. 18,000 to 20,000 citizenship applications were granted each year in previous years. A similar number were granted citizenship in-principle in 2011. However, new citizens now have to go through the Singapore Citizenship Journey which helps new citizens better appreciate our history, norms and values. This process takes about two months to complete. Hence, about 4,000 applicants who began their citizenship formalities in late 2011 will be granted citizenship only in early 2012. We took in 27,521 new Permanent Residents, or PRs, last year. The size of the PR population has remained relatively stable in the last few years.

Sir, strong families are the bedrock of our society, enabling our Singaporean values and way of life to be passed on from generation to generation. Mr Seah Kian Peng, Mr Gerald Giam and Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked for additional support to encourage marriage and parenthood in order to raise our birth rates. I welcome all these suggestions. I am always thinking of new ways to improve my own KPIs. We will study them but, as Mr Seah said, perhaps not this year but in the future.

Our declining birth rates, like in other developed societies, especially East Asian urbanised ones like Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong, have come together with rising singlehood, later marriages, and married couples having fewer children. We have invested sizeable resources to support Singaporeans in getting married and having children and these have just been put in place in recent years. So, I think we should wait and see the impact of these major measures that have been taken. Our Marriage and Parenthood package was raised from $500 million in 2001, to $800 million in 2004. And in 2008, it was doubled to $1.6 billion a year. This is a comprehensive package comprising a broad range of measures such as the Baby Bonus, childcare and infant care subsidies, maternity and childcare leave, as well as tax benefits for parents. Beyond the Marriage and Parenthood package, the Government has also invested heavily in education, healthcare and housing to create a pro-family environment. And we will do more, particularly in the pre-school segment. Ultimately, it is the values and social attitudes of Singaporeans in their 20s, 30s and 40s which will determine whether they decide to marry and have children. To support and encourage them, we will continue to fine-tune our policies and measures.

Page: 1631

Apart from the Baby Bonus cash gift of up to $6,000 for the first to fourth child of every family, we also introduced the Child Development Account, or CDA, in 2001. Since 2001, the Government has provided co-matching deposits in the accounts of over 200,000 children, amounting to close to $1 billion. Deposits are matched by the Government up to a cap ranging from $6,000 to $18,000 per child, depending on the birth order of the child. The CDA savings can be used for the developmental needs of the children and their siblings, such as childcare, kindergarten and healthcare. Currently, the CDA savings account can be used from birth till the child is six years old. After that, the remaining amount is transferred to the Post Secondary Education Account for use when the child proceeds for studies in an approved post-secondary education institution, such as one of our local universities, polytechnics or ITEs. Many children have substantial savings in their CDAs at age six, while their parents still face many needed expenses for them. We will thus enhance the way that parents can use the CDA to better support the needs of their children during these important growing years.

First, we will extend the age when the CDA savings account can be used, from up to the age of six previously, to up to the age of 12. With this, parents will have six more years to use the CDA funds for the child and his siblings. Second, we will expand the scope of approved uses for CDA. This will now include expenses at pharmacies, opticians as well as providers of assistive technology devices, such as hearing and visual aids for children with disabilities. This will give parents more flexibility in using CDA funds for expenses directly related to raising their child. We will implement the changes to the CDA in the second half of 2012 and more details will be announced by MCYS later.

Several Members have asked if our immigration policy can be more accommodating towards foreigners who have lived in Singapore for many years. Our objective is to take in immigrants who can contribute and integrate well into our society. Applications for PR and citizenship are carefully evaluated on a set of comprehensive criteria which include the individual's economic contributions, qualifications, age and family ties. For those who are married to Singaporeans, we consider the length of their marriage, whether they have Singaporean children, and whether their sponsor is able to support the family financially.

As we have tightened our immigration framework, it has become more difficult to qualify for PR or citizenship. There is, however, still the option of applying for other immigration facilities such as work passes, social visit passes, dependant's passes or long term visit passes. Mr Ang is quite correct to say that more Singaporeans are marrying non-citizens. In 2010, 30% of marriages involving citizens were between a citizen and a foreigner. This is up from 23% in the year 2000. We do not fully understand the sociology and stresses within these marriages but we will study them. We will also study suggestions of marriage counselling, but a number of these marriages are forged overseas, before we have any opportunity to step in to do counselling or give any form of advice. While foreign spouses do not automatically qualify for citizenship or PR, most of those who do not, will qualify for a Long Term Visit Pass, or LTVP. Many of those on LTVP do eventually become PRs or naturalise as citizens after they have been married for some time, and their marriages are stable.

Page: 1632

Several Members − Dr Intan, Mr Hri Kumar Nair, Mr Muhd Faisal and Mr Ang -- asked if the Government could do more to help foreign spouses of Singaporeans, especially those with Singaporean children. I do agree that we can do more to help such families build more stable and stronger foundations. We sympathise with these families. But we have also seen the other side of the problem, where the foreign spouse who has received PR suddenly divorces and leaves the Singaporean citizen spouse. We have also seen Singapore citizens who have asked the immigration department to get the ex-foreign spouse to leave Singapore. We have seen instances of these, and so we would like to see that the marriages are stable and have been in existence for a substantial period of time before we give longer term immigration facilities, which place an obligation on Singapore and Singaporeans to support this person for the long term. But I do agree that we can do more.

To provide more support to the family of a Singaporean with a foreign spouse who has not yet been given PR or citizenship, we will introduce a new scheme, known as the Long Term Visit Pass Plus or LTVP+ from 1 April 2012. First, the scheme provides foreign spouses of citizens with greater certainty of stay. The LTVP+ will be for a duration of three years in the first instance, and up to five years for each subsequent renewal, instead of the current shorter periods of typically one year. Second, LTVP+ holders will receive healthcare subsidies for inpatient treatment at restructured hospitals, pegged at a level close to that for PRs, that is, about the same rates as PRs even though they have not yet been given PR. Third, it will be easier for LTVP+ holders to work to supplement the family income. They will only require a Letter of Consent from MOM to work, which can be easily obtained through online application. To qualify for LTVP+, factors, such as the length of marriage and whether there are citizen children in the family, will be considered. More details will be announced by ICA later today.

Let me now touch on the broader population challenges we face, and what these mean for our future. We will soon have to confront the twin effects of our low fertility and our ageing population. 2012 is a demographic turning point. Our first cohort of post-war Baby Boomers, that is, those born between 1947 and 1965, will start turning 65 years old from this year. Live births in Singapore peaked at around 62,500 in 1958. From now till 2030, Singapore will experience an unprecedented age shift, as over 900,000 Baby Boomers, more than a quarter of the current citizen population, retire from the workforce and enter their silver years. At current birth rates and without immigration, more than one in four citizens will be aged 65 and over in 2030. The median age of our citizens will rise to 47 from 39 today.

Today, there are currently about seven citizens in the working-ages from 15 to 64 years, to each citizen aged 65 and above _(Refer to Chart 1 on Pg1700 ) _ . By 2030, the number of elderly citizens will triple to 900,000, but they will be supported by a smaller base of working-age citizens _(Refer to Chart 2 on Pg 1701 ) _ . This is a result of the declining trend in our birth rates which have been below the replacement level over the last 35 years. By 2030, there will only be 2.3 working-age citizens to each citizen aged 65 and above _(Refer to Chart 3 on Pg 1702 _ ). You can see the difference between where we are today and where we will be in 2030, if our present fertility rates remain and there is no immigration.

Page: 1633

As more citizens retire and with fewer entering the working-age band, the number of citizens of working-age will start to shrink. Today, for every citizen retiring, say at 65 years old, we have about 2.2 entering the working-age band, that is, the working-age citizen population is still growing _(Refer to Chart 4 on Pg 1703 ) _ . Within the next decade, this situation will start to reverse, and the pool of working-age citizens will stop growing, and then start to shrink. By 2030, for every citizen retiring, we will only have about 0.6 citizens entering the working-age pool _(Refer to Chart 5 on Pg 1704 ) _ . Without immigration, we will face a shrinking workforce and the prospect of a shrinking economy. This challenging situation is compounded by the need to support a significantly larger elderly population at the same time. The effect on our citizen population will be dramatic. Post-2030, our population will start to decline sharply, and our median age will rise steadily _(Refer to Chart 6 on Pg 1705 ) _ . The median age of our citizens will rise to 53 in 2050 from 39 today.

We can already see this happening in Japan. Japan's population has been in decline since 2005. Between 2000 and 2010, Japan's workforce shrank by 0.3% a year and will decline even more sharply in the coming decades. By 2060, Japan's population is projected to shrink by a third from the current 128 million to 87 million. These are the grim realities Japan faces as it grapples with the effects of a fast ageing society.

We too will have to tackle the challenges of an ageing population and a shrinking citizen workforce. Our population policies will be guided by our overarching aim to build an enduring nation and home for Singaporeans. We will work hard to foster a supportive environment to encourage more Singaporeans to get married and start families. Singapore must remain a good home, where opportunities abound for our children.

Mr Inderjit Singh is right to point out that Singaporeans have always been welcoming towards new citizens who can contribute and integrate well into our society, especially since most Singaporeans are themselves second or third generation immigrants. Indeed, in this House we have Members who were not born in Singapore, and are now Singaporeans and fully contributing members of society. And I am sure the overwhelming majority would have at least one parent or grandparent not born in Singapore, even amongst Members of this House. Over time, Singaporeans have taken pride in our unique heritage, and the shared values and norms that we have evolved over several decades as a nation. Quite naturally, we expect that our new immigrants should adapt to our values and norms, and we get upset if they have not yet done so. However, I do agree with Mr Singh that we should not let recent reactions towards new immigrants and foreigners undo the good job that we have done in building a strong and cohesive society out of people from many lands.

Our on-going studies show that most of our new immigrants adapt well to life in Singapore, and have good relations with their Singaporean neighbours and colleagues. With time, our new citizens will become familiar with Singapore's norms and culture. With goodwill and patience on all sides, we can reach out, build a common sense of identity and work together towards a shared future. The National Integration Council will continue to look at ways to enhance relations between locals and new immigrants and help new immigrants better adapt to Singapore's culture and norms. On scholarships, PSC scholarships are only given to Singaporeans.

Page: 1634

Another group in our population is our foreign workforce. There has been an extensive discussion in the Budget debate just before the COS on the foreign workforce, on why we need to continue to have a foreign workforce in Singapore, so I will not go into any great detail here.

While we face serious demographic challenges and difficult trade-offs in managing population growth, Singapore has a good foundation on which we can build our future. I thank Dr Lim Wee Kiak and other Members for their comments and questions on Singapore's future population.

Our most critical long-term issue is to develop a sustainable population strategy that will maintain the vitality of Singapore, strengthen our harmonious multi-ethnic society, and enable Singaporeans to achieve their life aspirations. As we do so, we will engage Singaporeans and ensure that the views, aspirations and concerns of our people are considered. The National Population and Talent Division (NPTD) in the Prime Minister's Office is comprehensively examining our population goals and policies. In the course of the year, NPTD will work with other agencies, engage stakeholders and members of the public through dialogues and online channels to discuss these issues holistically, including the size and composition of our population. These will impact on issues such as land use and infrastructure planning, as several Members, including Mr Seah, have referred to.

We will incorporate the inputs in a White Paper on Population that we intend to publish by the end of this year. Through this process, we hope to bring to light issues that are important to Singapore and Singaporeans, and develop a shared understanding of our strategies to build a sustainable population that secures Singapore's future.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will resume the Chair at 3.45 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.45 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.45 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]