Hansard, Thursday, 7 February 2013

1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development if there are plans to set up more services, such as respite services, residential homes and day activity centres for the moderately to severely disabled adults in Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, many parents and families who have adult members with moderate to severe disabilities are concerned about the availability of care services. This is especially so when many of them are living longer and may outlive their care-givers. We also share and empathise with these concerns. Under the Enabling Masterplan 2012-2016, my Ministry will invest more resources and work with Voluntary Welfare Organisations (VWOs) to enhance such services.

We will develop more community-based facilities. Today, we have 19 Day Activity Centres (DACs) which provide 950 places for the adult disabled who need full-day care. We will increase this to 29 centres offering about 1,450 places by 2020. The first five new centres will be up within the next five years. We will also enhance the skills set of the Day Activity Centre staff so that they are better able to care for adults with moderate to severe disabilities.

This year, we also intend to pilot a new drop-in disability programme at existing community facilities. This will cater to those who do not require full-day care but social interaction and recreational activities for a few hours a day, a few times a week. We aim to start four pilots at different locations this year.

We will continue to support families who care for adult members with disability at home. We have introduced home care services which cover areas, such as personal hygiene and meals. About 600 families with disabled members have also benefited from the monthly $95 Foreign Domestic Worker (FDW) Levy Concession, while another 320 families with disabled members received the monthly $120 Foreign Domestic Worker Grant introduced last October. Family members or FDWs may also tap on the Caregiver Training Grant to pick up skills

Page: 8

in care for the disabled.

Despite our effort to support home and community-based care, there will be some adults with disabilities who need residential care. The demand will rise given the longer lifespan of persons with disabilities. Today, we have eight Adult Disability Homes which provide 830 places. We plan to provide an additional 2,400 residential places by the year 2020. To complement the Adult Disability Homes, we also intend to work with VWOs to pilot group homes for persons with disabilities who are relatively independent. If successful, this will widen the residential options available.

Some of our efforts are in its nascent phase, while others are more established services being expanded. We will invest the necessary resources but we will need time to implement the plans. More importantly, we will need the support of the families and the community so that all the efforts put together will give parents and care-givers the peace of mind and enable our disabled to be well cared for.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for the comprehensive reply. I wanted to ask if the Acting Minister would be able to, either now or later, provide a forecast of the requirements of this particular target group, which comprises mainly people who have more severe disabilities and who need special handling. There are three main needs in terms of setting up facilities: one is physical facilities; the second is funding, especially for the more severe cases; and the third – which is the largest bottleneck – is the manpower. Many local people do not want this kind of jobs because it is difficult and they have other choices, in terms of careers. I would like to ask the Acting Minister to provide, firstly, the forecast. Secondly, some segmented needs profile so that those who really need help but help is not easily gotten – like for this group with very severe disabilities – that we can use together to formulate some solutions. The VWOs are willing to work on them. We just need to be able to work with the Ministry on this.

Mdm Speaker, I thank Ms Denise Phua for her supplementary questions and suggestions. Yes, certainly, we will provide the forecast and we are working closely with the VWOs to meet some of these needs. The Member is right. The physical infrastructure is probably the easier part to meet. But more importantly is the funding of the programmes; and, most importantly, is the manpower requirement.

Page: 9

For the funding of the programmes, we are open to working with more VWOs to pilot different sorts of programmes for different tiers of needs. As for manpower, as what we have described in other sectors, we are also looking at new sources of manpower to see whether we can open up more opportunities for people to contribute part-time services to this community. At the same time, in order to ensure that our manpower supply is robust, we would also need to explore alternative sources of manpower beyond the traditional countries that we have been working with.

2 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Social and Family Development (a) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the age and income limit under the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) Scheme to help divorced women who have custody of their children; (b) whether the support for divorcees in the areas of housing costs and childcare will be improved; and (c) how does the Ministry ensure that divorcees receive maintenance fees in a timely manner.

Mdm Speaker, the Home Ownership Plus Education (HOPE) scheme helps young, less-educated and lower-income couples who choose to keep their families small. The scheme does not specifically focus on divorced mothers. But following a review in 2009, divorced mothers can apply to join the scheme. As at September 2012, 301 divorced mothers were on the scheme, including some who had marginally missed the eligibility criteria but were admitted on a case-by-case basis. MSF is reviewing the HOPE scheme now and we note Dr Lee's various suggestions.

Divorcees with young children may sometimes find it difficult to afford alternative housing after they have sold their matrimonial flat. For those in financial hardship, HDB will look into ways to help them. For example, HDB can help them source for a flat that they can afford, and consider incorporating the resale levy into the price of the flat or provide loans to reduce the upfront cost. For those who need temporary accommodation, HDB can offer them interim housing under the Interim Rental Housing Scheme, while they rebuild their savings or work out more permanent housing arrangements. For those who cannot afford home ownership, HDB can consider offering them a public rental

Page: 10

flat.

In the area of childcare, single parents are eligible for infant and childcare subsidies. In addition, ComCare childcare subsidies provide further financial assistance to families earning a household income of $3,500 or below, or a per capita income of up to $875. MSF regularly reviews the support provided for childcare and infant care, especially for lower and middle income families.

Receiving timely payment of maintenance is an issue some divorcees face. Under the Women's Charter, the Court can make an attachment of earnings order when it makes an order for maintenance. An attachment of earnings order will deduct the maintenance amount directly from the payer's salary and transfer it to the maintenance recipient. This will help to secure payment of the maintenance.

In 2011, MSF amended the Women's Charter to increase the range of sanctions against maintenance defaulters. With the amendments, the Court can order a defaulter to post a bank guarantee against future defaults, perform community service or attend financial counselling. This is in addition to the Court being able to make a garnishee order, levy a fine or sentencing the defaulter to imprisonment. Complainants are also empowered to report the maintenance debt to a designated credit bureau.

Mdm Speaker, I have one supplementary question. I have a resident who is a divorcee with three children, and she has joint custody of the children with her ex-husband. She confided in me that her ex-husband always defaults on the maintenance payment. Worse still, he always makes applications to the Family Court, and brings along his lawyer. My resident is working, and so she has to apply for leave to attend the hearings. It is very stressful to deal with three children, no maintenance payment, and still face the need to apply for leave to attend the court hearings. Otherwise, she said she would be issued with warrants of arrest. In a situation like this, how else can the Ministry help a divorcee in such a dire situation?

Mdm Speaker, I do not have all the details of this particular case, but MSF will be most happy to extend help to this resident of Dr Lee's. If the Member can provide details, I will ask my staff to follow up to see how best we can provide the legal and financial help to the family.

Page: 11

The following question stood in the name of Ms Janice Koh –

3 To ask the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) if he will give an update on the implementation of the Community Engagement Masterplan; and (b) what is the breakdown of expenditure on the Masterplan's initiatives, including how much has been spent on (i) additional manpower given to agencies and the hire of community engagement officers (ii) direct grants awarded to professional artists, arts groups and intermediaries (iii) direct grants awarded to community arts groups (iv) programmes to raise arts appreciation and cultural literacy and (v) upgrading and building of facilities.

4 To ask the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) how it intends to measure the success of the Community Engagement Masterplan at the end of FY16; (b) whether there is a comprehensive basket of qualitative and quantitative indicators being used to chart the progress and effectiveness of the outreach initiatives under the Masterplan; and (c) whether there is a lead agency to be held accountable for all the deliverables.

Question No 3.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 3 and 4 together.

Yes, please.

Launched in April 2012, the Community Engagement Masterplan aims to bring the arts and culture closer to many more Singaporeans. We want to encourage Singaporeans to pursue their interests in the arts and culture, enrich their quality of life and strengthen their sense of heritage, and also their connection with the community. This is a long-term programme that requires strong support and participation from the community.

As at 31 December 2012, an estimated $19 million has been expended under the Masterplan. Around 50% of these funds have gone towards establishing networks of staff and volunteers to engage residents and to work with them to tailor programmes of interest to the local community. These networks also disseminate information on activities, resources and facilities

Page: 12

that are available, thereby enhancing interest in arts and culture in the community.

Another 40% of the Community Engagement Masterplan funding has been used to support new programmes. The programmes funded under the Masterplan include the creation of 84 community arts and culture clubs, and various community interest groups in art forms, such as pottery, theatre, singing and even the ukulele.

Other programmes supported under the Masterplan include the over 450 Arts and Culture 101 programmes held at NLB's public libraries, and other targeted programmes for youths, seniors and working adults, which aim to increase appreciation for arts and culture.

Many of these programmes have involved professional arts practitioners, creating new platforms for professional artists to engage the community. To date, more than 140 artists and arts groups have participated in various platforms as performers, instructors and mentors.

For example, NAC had a Silver Arts Platform which supported the literary publication Ceriph in their first community project "10 X 10". Basically, they paired 10 young writers with 10 senior citizens to collaborate on creative writing projects. NAC's "Let's Connect" networking sessions are another example, providing opportunities for community organisations and arts practitioners to collaborate.

The remaining 10% of funding has gone towards the development and upgrading of facilities under the Community Engagement Masterplan. These include a number of new and enhanced heritage trails and the recently opened community museum at Taman Jurong. These developments have served as touchpoints to engage volunteers and other enthusiasts. Our Museum @ Taman Jurong alone involved the participation of more than 200 residents in the lead-up to its launch in January this year.

Besides the more broad-based programmes rolled out in this initial phase, funding under the Community Engagement Masterplan will also support programmes to deepen engagement among new audiences. Through the various initiatives under the Community Engagement Masterplan, MCCY's agencies and partners will also encourage community enthusiasts to work with professional arts practitioners so as to help raise the quality of arts and culture

Page: 13

programming at the community level.

To gauge the Masterplan's success, we monitor a range of indicators that are both quantitative and qualitative in nature. The quantitative measures include the number of programmes that are supported and the number of Singaporeans the programmes have reached out to. Some of the qualitative indicators include Singaporeans' perception of arts and culture, which are captured in NAC's biennial National Population Survey on the Arts. We also monitor the percentages of Singaporeans who agree that arts and culture have contributed towards a better quality of life, a greater sense of belonging, and a better understanding of people of different backgrounds and cultures.

In addition to these indicators, our implementation agencies, such as NAC, NHB, PA and NLB, also have separate quantitative and qualitative indicators for their respective initiatives under the Masterplan. For example, NLB tracks whether there is a change in a person's interest in arts and culture after he has attended the NLB's Arts and Culture 101 programme; NAC tracks the impact of arts and culture on the well-being of beneficiaries for its programmes in the social sector.

Collectively, all of these efforts contribute towards the long-term outcomes set out in our Arts and Culture Strategic Review (ACSR). One of the outcomes that is envisaged in the Arts and Culture Strategic Review is that by 2025, we hope that at least four out of every five Singaporeans will attend at least one arts and culture event, and at least half of all Singaporeans will participate actively in the arts.

As the lead agency for the Community Engagement Masterplan, MCCY will monitor and account for our overall progress to ensure that the investment in the Community Engagement Masterplan translates to real benefits for Singaporeans. This includes the continual review and refinement of all programmes and initiatives to ensure that the efforts of the agencies that are part of the Masterplan collectively contribute to our desired outcomes.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. I have two supplementary questions. I am really glad to hear that the agencies implementing the Masterplan initiatives are developing their own basket of quantitative and qualitative success indicators. I think a biennial survey might be a little too general and does not necessarily just capture the impact of the community initiatives. I am wondering if those outcomes will be made public. My second question is related to manpower, and

Page: 14

whether or not the cultural officers that have been deployed or are hired to work at the CC level have been given the requisite training, as well as the exposure to the arts.

I thank the Member for the supplementary questions. The first question, on whether the indicators at the agency-level can be published, we would do so to the extent possible. We do want to make sure that each agency tracks the programmes that it is initiating and it is implementing, and be accountable for these programmes. When we do a review of the overall effort, then we will see whether there is scope to fine-tune our programmes at that stage. So, the indicators are, indeed, helpful for that purpose and, to the extent possible, we would encourage the agencies to put out these indicators.

The second question, on manpower and training, it is something that we would like to do. We are doing this, and I think we can do better. We have had a group of staff and volunteers, as I mentioned in my reply earlier, who are deployed within the community. That is manpower that is needed in order to help link up the community with arts groups, arts professionals, to help understand better what the community needs are. I appreciate the point that these officers also need to be trained in arts at some level, so that they understand not only the needs of the community, but also have a good understanding of what is happening in the arts space, who are the professionals in the arts, sectors that they can link up with. We have done some of that kind of exposure and training, but I think we can do more. And we will continue to do so.

5 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health if he will implement measures to provide MediShield coverage for persons born with congenital illnesses and diagnosed before 1 March 2013 who are excluded from the recently announced Marriage and Parenthood Package.

Mdm Speaker, MediShield is a health insurance scheme which focuses on inpatient hospitalisation and selected outpatient treatment like chemotherapy and dialysis. My Ministry recently announced the extension of MediShield coverage to congenital conditions for Singaporeans born on or after 1 March 2013. Existing policyholders will also receive coverage for congenital conditions diagnosed on or after 1 March 2013.

Page: 15

Conditions diagnosed prior to the extension in cover are considered pre-existing and, hence, will not be covered under MediShield. Covering pre-existing conditions will lead to higher premiums for all.

My Ministry understands the concerns of Singaporeans whose children were diagnosed with congenital conditions before 1 March 2013, and has put in place further measures to address these concerns. We have set up a new scheme, Medifund Junior, from 1 March 2013 to provide additional financial assistance for healthcare bills incurred by children. Children with congenital conditions diagnosed before 1 March 2013 will benefit from this additional assistance under Medifund Junior, if their families face difficulties with their healthcare bills. Medifund Junior will help us to more effectively target families with higher needs and provide added assurance to Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the answer. Basic healthcare insurance for every person, not just for children, regardless of ability or health condition, is an essential good that is needed, as the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has said, in times of hospitalisation, or even for treatment such as chemotherapy, and so forth. I am really grateful to MOH and the Government for responding to the public's cry for – especially in the special needs community – covering children who are born on or after 1 March 2013 with congenital or pre-existing conditions. So, thank you for that, I want to register that.

However, there is still this group who are in the transition who happened to be missed out and excluded from this wonderful package. Say what we want, they are still excluded, and they are not provided with what is basic healthcare insurance. We have always heard that if we include them, then a higher premium will be incurred. But I think this is something that is more than economics. It is a basic good or essential good that should be provided to every citizen, I ask the Ministry to look at this again. It is not an easy topic. I feel that the Medifund Junior that is set up will help some but not cover every child, and does not include every Singaporean that needs to be covered. This is only a transitional period. I ask for a special look into this.

I also ask the Ministry to make public what is Medifund Junior. What is the definition of "children"? Does it mean that if they are older than 12, they are not covered? What is really covered? What kind of criteria are we looking at? And what happens to the rest of the Singaporean children, youths and adults who are not covered currently? And also, to look urgently into situations under which

Page: 16

they need to go beyond the usual MediShield coverage ceiling; to see if there are best practices in other countries and other societies that we can look into so that they can be safe from that kind of hardship that they will experience if they do not have money to treat their congenital or pre-existing illnesses. So, I look forward to MOH's help in this. It is not easy. I thank you very much for the M&P Package. I really think that we might as well complete it and include this group that is not included.

Madam, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions, and also for her concerns for the children. That is the precise intention of what we are doing. In fact, we are going to roll out the Medifund Junior, which is for children aged below 18. Essentially, with Medifund Junior, we would cover our children. No Singaporean children will be deprived of medical attention and treatment, even if they do not have the financial resources. But we will look into the Member's views. To me, it is an on-going journey that we are looking at to see how we can further enhance our healthcare system.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his openness. I would like to know how long that on-going journey will be, because I am advocating not just for those below 18, but there are many, for example, adults with Down Syndrome where it is not transparent if they are covered or not under the current scheme. I understand they are not covered in many instances. Many insurers are not interested in covering them, but I think the State should look into this and see how we can come up with some solutions on this. For some families, it may be co-sharing. For others who are from the lower income families, the State might want to take over the insurance. I would just like to ask for some timeline on this.

Madam, I am also happy to share with the Member that we have increased the portion for Medifund for those who are above 18. We have increased it from $80 million to $100 million. Like I said earlier, essentially, we will look into the needs of Singaporeans, regardless of their conditions. We want to ensure that no Singaporeans are deprived of medical services. Again, I thank the Member for her views. We will certainly look at all the views and further improve our healthcare system.

Page: 17

6 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Transport if the Ministry will develop and implement elderly-proof road safety master plans for estates with a higher number of elderly residents, for example, in the North Bridge Road, Crawford, Waterloo and Rochor areas.

Mdm Speaker, road and pedestrian safety for everyone, and not just the elderly, has always been one of our topmost concerns.

Where site situations permit, for example in housing estates, LTA will install traffic-calming measures, such as humps and speed-regulating strips, to ensure that motorists reduce their speeds. To facilitate safer crossings along certain roads, LTA constructs centre dividers to provide a central refuge for pedestrians.

Specifically for the elderly, we recently announced new plans to retrofit more pedestrian overhead bridges with lifts. For traffic light crossings, the Green Man Plus scheme has been expanded to allow the elderly to activate longer crossing times. LTA also collaborates with other agencies like the Singapore Road Safety Council to educate the elderly on crossing roads safely.

Notwithstanding these measures, we would be happy to consider the idea of estate-specific elderly-proof road safety master plans, and I welcome the Member to work with the Ministry and LTA to take this idea further.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the response. I am heartened to hear that LTA is open to this. I just want to register that LTA has been very responsive in my area whenever we make requests. As you know, there are some areas in Singapore which have predominantly elderly people, such as where I serve, Kampong Glam; or where Dr Lily Neo serves, Kreta Ayer; and even Mr Sam Tan's Redhill area. I hope that some priority will be given to these areas so that the old people would not have to wait until it is too late to enjoy some of these elderly-proof facilities.

Madam, again, I would like to thank the Member for the supplementary questions. We share her concerns. That is the reason why I mentioned that we give road safety our top priority, not only for the elderly but also for all road users. We will be very happy to work

Page: 18

with the Member, looking at specific locations in her area, as well as in other areas, to see how we can enhance the road safety aspect. After all, these are our fellow human beings. We want to ensure they are always safe on the road.

7 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) why there has been a drop in visitorship to the Singapore Art Museum since 2009; (b) why there has been a drop in the number of changing exhibitions at the Singapore Art Museum and other national museums since 2009; and (c) whether there should be an increase in the FY13 and future budgetary allocations to our museums, in particular, the Singapore Art Museum.

Mdm Speaker, since 2009, the Singapore Art Museum (SAM) has shifted its focus to Singapore, Southeast Asian and Asian contemporary art, moving away from international "blockbusters", to promote and project content that is relevant to Singapore.

As part of the shift, SAM has also positioned itself as a platform to develop, nurture and champion local artists, working with both established and emerging artists to create new artworks or explore new forms of art practice.

We think this stronger focus on local development and content may have contributed to the decline in visitorship numbers. Nevertheless, I believe it is the right focus for SAM. The museum is working hard to promote greater awareness and interest in regional and local art. Over time, this will help draw more people to the museum, and also ensure that it remains accessible and attractive to Singaporeans.

At the same time, in line with public expectations of quality, the national museums have also been refocusing resources on more significant exhibitions, to enhance visitor experience. Exhibitions at our museums are now presented with stronger curatorial focus, a broader scope, running for a longer duration and accompanied by a broader array of accompanying programmes, such as performances, public lectures, curator tours, artist-led workshops and activities for children. For example, the exhibition "A Life of Practice – Kuo Pao Kun", which is currently running at the National Museum of Singapore, presents Kuo Pao Kun's life through a wide selection of media, and involves concurrently

Page: 19

running plays and a film screening.

The focus of our national museums on higher quality, broader engagement and more original content will require strong support from the Government. My Ministry will work closely with NHB to ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to our national museums. Through this, we hope to further our museums' role in promoting Singapore's artistic and cultural heritage, and to develop them as national symbols that our people can be proud of, with rich offerings that all can enjoy.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker, and I thank the Acting Minister for his reply. It is great that SAM is trying to be a little more focused in terms of its theme on Southeast Asian and Asian art. However, I still feel that the broader Singaporean public that does not have easy access to high quality international artworks should still continue to have some kind of access, and that helps raise our cultural literacy and appreciation for the arts in general. I know it is a lot more expensive to bring in the "blockbusters", but I hope that the Ministry will consider other museums who can take over this role. These "blockbusters" bring a large number of Singaporeans who may not ordinarily go into the museum to see world-quality art.

My second question is regarding marketing and publicity. We can see from the numbers that both SAM and the National Museum had a drop in changing exhibits in the last two years. However, the National Museum had an increase of about 10% visitorship whereas SAM had a decrease of about 15%. It could have been that a few "blockbuster" exhibitions at the National Museum still managed to attract a high number of visitors despite the fact that they had fewer exhibitions. It also has to do with the quality of exhibitions, as well as the outreach and marketing efforts. So, I would like to ask the Ministry to ensure that SAM, as well as the smaller museums, have enough of a budget to reach out to a wider number of Singaporeans.

Lastly, with regard to the Singapore Biennale, which will give us an opportunity to feature world-class art from Southeast Asia, the region and Singapore, to ensure that we put in enough thought into marketing and publicity so that we reach out to new audiences and people who do not normally go into a museum.

I would like to thank the Member for all her very constructive and useful suggestions. I share all her points because, indeed, I think we need to do more to reach out to Singaporeans and to make quality art

Page: 20

accessible to them. It is not just through the museums. We had the Singapore Art Week recently, which was a very good show, and offerings of art exhibitions at the Art Stage, Gillman Barracks, SAM, amongst others. And we had a good turn-out. But we can still do more in terms of getting people to come to these exhibitions, reaching out to school kids, students, community groups to organise tours in these various platforms, in which people can enjoy and appreciate art. We hope to do more of that, not just for SAM but the broader platforms or other museums, as the Member has suggested, other art exhibitions that could be done at the Gillman Barracks, at the Art Stage, or at the other Art Fests in Singapore.

The overall scene, I think, is becoming more vibrant, and so there will, indeed, be more opportunities for Singaporeans to enjoy and appreciate art in Singapore. So, the point is well taken that we need to do a lot more outreach, not just about marketing and publicity, but outreach to Singaporeans to make art accessible to them. That is something we hope to do in the Ministry, and working with our partner agencies as well.

The same thing would go for the Biennale that the Member mentioned. It is something that we hope will not just be an event that people feel is far and away, aloof and distant, and that it is only for a particular group of people, but one which all Singaporeans can feel is something they can enjoy.

On the point about quality of exhibitions and making the balance between local/regional art and international "blockbusters", the museums are mindful of this. They do want to have more focused exhibitions, providing platforms for local and regional artists. I think it is commendable that they are doing that. We do need to promote that space a lot more but they cannot just do it exclusively. They will need to find a balance between the kinds of exhibitions that they have – some will be international "blockbusters", and there will still be a continuation of these exhibitions – whether at SAM or the National Museum. But, overall, we do also want to have a strong focus on developing local and regional artists, and also strengthening the cultural and heritage connections that the museums can provide for Singaporeans.

Order. End of Question Time.

Page: 21

[(proc text) Resumption of Debate on Question [4 February 2013], (proc text)]

[(proc text) "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]. (proc text)]

[(proc text) Amendments proposed [5 February 2013] – (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) (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: (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) (b) plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand; (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) (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). (proc text)]

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

[(proc text) Question again proposed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, when this White Paper was released, like most Members of this House, I received a lot of feedback from Singaporeans from all walks of life. Many were concerned about the headline

Page: 22

population projections, wondering if it could be achieved and, more importantly, at what cost. Others opined that the exact figures were unimportant as long as Singaporeans could continue to enjoy a good standard of living. There were even a few bullish ones who remarked that perhaps the figures were even too conservative, and a larger population was needed.

I believe that everyone holds an opinion on this, and that is the first remarkable aspect of this White Paper that I would like to highlight, that it has encouraged all Singaporeans to really begin thinking about the directions that our country should take, and the preparations that are needed to achieve this. I hope that all Singaporeans will take the time to read through the White Paper in an open and considered manner, and realise that, far from being a means to an end, it actually represents a means to a beginning.

This White Paper presents a bold vision. But we are all heartened to note that, at its very foundation, if you read it closely, is its aim to, first and foremost, affirm the position of Singaporeans as the focus of this vision, no matter what future challenges await us. And I am sure that no one would disagree with this, so I am more than a little disturbed that Members from the other side of the House have not come to fully appreciate this point but have chosen instead to concentrate on numbers rather than truly providing constructive and realistic ideas about how we can improve the quality of our lives while moderating population expansion, because this is exactly what this White Paper is really about.

As it has already been established, and contrary to what some detractors had tried to portray, the Government is not trying to target any population target or any population composition. But we are trying to impress on Singaporeans the gravity of the challenges facing us, of which population expansion is just one key consideration. There has been no attempt, I am glad to note, to sugarcoat the stark realities that face us, although there are concrete proposals as to how to deal with them. In fact, it reflects a recalibration to acknowledge lower growth expectations and pushes for lower population growth rates and foreigner influx, rather than the other way around. If we are able to assure a good quality of life and the continued survival of our city state in 2030, 2040 and beyond with a population of – well, we can paint any figure, for example, 5.5 million, 5.7 million, 5.8 million, 6 million, 6.5 million, then so be it, because nowhere in the White Paper does it say that there is any pre-ordained economic growth or population figure to be pursued at all costs.

If you would allow me the indulgence to perhaps draw a parallel from my profession as a doctor, as a responsible doctor. What I see most days are

Page: 23

patients, for example, who come into my clinic with pain in the knee. This is typically an elderly patient, and the most common diagnosis is that of arthritis of the knee. Arthritis of the knee merely means that the cartilage or the tissues in the knee are wearing out. So, my duty as a doctor is to fully explain the diagnosis to the patient, tell him what the problem is and also what the problem may be like in the future. Sometimes, the patient does not want to know, but I may also have a duty of care to explain the facts to the caregivers, the children and so on. Once all this is done, then my next job is to explain all the choices that this patient can make to deal with his particular problem. In many cases, I may have to prescribe or recommend surgery. But, of course, there are trade-offs with this. Surgery is an uncomfortable process, at least in the beginning. The caregivers must give special attention to deal with this period of hospitalisation or aftercare. But the final expectation is that the patient would have a good quality of life once he or she is fully recovered. However, an equally valid proposition or choice for this patient is to say, "Well, I would be prepared to accept that, as I grow older, I will be less mobile, I may have a little bit more pain and be less active in my life." This is an equally valid proposition and deals away with the pains of surgery. But, as a doctor, I would also have an opinion as to what I think would be the best treatment for this patient because if I have my patient's best interest at heart, then what I would want for this patient is to allow this "Ah Mah" or "Ah Pek" to go back to the way he or she was before he or she had this condition. And this is what a responsible doctor has to do.

Similarly, what a responsible government has to do is to make all the facts available to the population and not sugarcoat any of it and begin a debate as to the choices and the alternatives that are in front of us. This is not an end of any policy that has a defined end point. This is the start of the debate. There are alternatives, choices and trade-offs, and I think it is well and good that we begin to discuss this right now rather than trying to defer the issue or to "kick the can down the road", as has been mentioned previously.

We have to be realistic about the twin internal challenges that face us, which are a stubbornly low TFR and an ageing population and acknowledge that dealing with these problems is not easy and there are few success stories out there to this day. Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] We have to be realistic about the twin internal challenges that face us, which are a stubbornly low TFR and an ageing population.

As I see it, the Government has already given assurances that it will never give up on tackling these issues, but one has to be practical enough to

Page: 24

appreciate that we need time to resolve these issues, and also to be realistic enough to appreciate that despite our best efforts, we may not be able to address these problems adequately. Certainly, in the near to mid term, to achieve the growth in citizen workforce without relying on non-Citizens might very well mean that our children will need to enter the workforce at a younger age, and we may only be able to retire to enjoy our senior years at a much older age. Is this the sort of Singapore we desire for ourselves and our children?

I am a firm believer that our seniors can continue to contribute both socially and economically, but I also feel it is not sustainable for us, as a nation, to ask of our citizens to postpone their retirement and continue working well into their later years.

No disrespect to the hon Mr Yee, but I object to our Singaporean workforce being likened to a tap that can be turned on and off. He starts off stating that Singapore should not be looked upon as a company, which we all agree is well and good, but, later, reduces Singapore workers to so many drops of water from a faucet. Mr Yee, we are not a people that can be turned on or off like an ordinary tap.

Other documented examples of successes in promoting resident workforce participation seem even more draconian: for example, Poland has been credited with significant success in this area by cutting welfare and social safety nets.

The Government is listening to the aspirations of our younger generation by setting ambitious targets for moving a significant proportion of our citizen population to high-value high-paying jobs by 2030, aiming for two out of every three citizens to hold such jobs: this will be an incredible achievement, but who then will take up the lower-skilled, lower-paying but equally important jobs, such as care-giving, senior facilitators, therapy assistants and so on?

I represent the good people of Queenstown, where close to 20% of residents are above the age of 60, and, so, it already provides a snapshot of what Singapore will be like in 2030. The elderly in Queenstown are generally happy and healthy and lead good lives, but they still require more labour-intensive resources than the younger residents.

I would like to put up two requests here. My first specific request is that special consideration should always be made to ensure adequate manpower provisions for eldercare services. Second, I was very happy to see the development plans for the Dawson Estate in Queenstown mentioned in the

Page: 25

Land Use Plan, but just as Ms Faizah Jamal before me has called for greater attention to be paid to the environment, I would also like to call for continued attention to be paid to our urban heritage.

As our population grows and our towns develop, an appreciation of our heritage in its various forms could be an important part of connecting residents both new and old, and this would reinforce the third pillar of the White Paper, namely, keeping Singapore a good home.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I feel that moving forward, the Government will have to do a lot more to assure Singaporeans that whatever development trajectory that we take, we will be adequately prepared to deal with these changes such that our quality of life is not only maintained but continues to improve, and that our citizens will continue to have the right to first refusal of all opportunities that arise.

Citizenship has its responsibilities, but it also has its privileges. During the early days of nation building, the nascent PAP Government entreated the people to work with them and endure sea changes so that their lives could improve. It was a big task, but Singaporeans believed in the call, and we grew to be a nation to be proud of and which other nations envied. In recent more challenging times, the Government has still managed to maintain us on an even keel, and we even prospered whilst many countries around us are in crisis, but relative deficiencies in keeping the infrastructure growth apace of population expansion has led to many expectations not being met.

My residents have expressed their concerns to me about overcrowding, the perception that Singaporean wage increases and opportunities are compromised by foreign labour, and a cost of living that appears to be climbing ever upwards. It is thus not surprising that many are less than enthusiastic about a new plan in which any degree of population expansion is considered. One resident remarked that notwithstanding everything else, "the bread-and-butter issues of today must be resolved first". This is a sentiment that I can sympathise with, and echoes many of the views expressed in this House over the past few days.

So, the Government has its work cut out to strengthen the public's trust that it can meet its citizens' high but reasonable expectations regarding their quality of life, otherwise many will remain unconvinced that we will be able to realise this vision.

Page: 26

As such, I would like to state my support for the hon Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa's proposed amendment to this Motion, which explicitly states that:

this is a Motion that calls for uplifting of all Singaporeans while being cognisant of the demographic challenges ahead;

emphasises that there are, indeed, no pre-mediated population targets; and

reinforces the primary duty of Government to solve the current bread-and-butter issues while ensuring that benefits continue to accrue to Singaporeans first.

Which brings me to my final point and what I think is the other remarkable aspect of this Paper, which is, why is this Government putting this paper out after all? I think this has already been answered over the past few days. It seems that after so many days of debate, and no matter which side of the House you sit on, we seem to be aligned on two points which are self-evident:

that Singapore Citizens are the core of any development plans; and

that the population and economy should grow, but with as little foreigner influx as possible.

As some pundits have remarked, "This is a wise and just Government, it has done so many good things for the country, so why does it have to set out such a potentially divisive and unpopular Paper?" After all, if you look through the literature in virtually every developed country that has tried to debate addressing demographic challenges through population modulation, the initial reaction has almost always been significantly guarded, if not negative.

But I believe that the answer lies in the fact that this is a just Government, a responsible Government, and a caring Government that it must do what has to be done. This, to a large extent, should be above politics. Now, more than ever, as an adolescent nation striving towards greater maturity, our people need to be kept informed of our internal as well as external changes, possible scenarios, roadmaps to the future, their views and concerns must be collated, they must be sought in order to refine this plan and all the alternative trade-offs and not just any single plan presented to the voting public. This Government will have to be fleet, astute and hardworking to encourage the needed trust and support from the people in order for us to move forward as a nation. And I have

Page: 27

the confidence that it will.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to commend the Government for raising a topic that is important and, quite clearly, not winning them brownie points at the moment with the general public. But I would like to say that the White Paper has some missing and wrong ingredients, and I do not agree with the population projection numbers and, hence, I am unable to endorse the paper.

One key issue for me is that I am having a major disconnect. How did we go from fearing ageing and depopulation to having a potential population explosion? Where does this dependence on growing GDP through increased immigration end? If we continue the 1.4% total population growth projected for 2020-2030 in the White Paper beyond 2030, our population size will double every 50 years. This means it will hit 9.8 million in 2050 and 19.7 million by the end of the century. I hope the Government would reassure us that doubling our population every 50 years is a "no-case scenario".

If the Government says, alright, they agree that we need to stop this population growth at some point, and stop relying on workforce growth as one of the key means to boost our GDP, the question then is why can that point not be brought forward? Why can we not do the adjustments earlier?

On the economic front, are we really making the transition to a knowledge-based, innovation economy? Exactly 10 years ago, in February 2003, the Economic Review Committee (ERC) outlined key recommendations to remake Singapore into a creative and entrepreneurial nation. Have we failed? Seems like we might have, and we need to examine the reasons for the failure.

In the ERC report, it projected a sustainable growth rate of 3%-5% per annum, with productivity growth of 2%-3% and labour force growth of 1%-2%. Instead, we had labour force growth between 2000 and 2010 of 3.7%, almost double the upper bound target and with about two-thirds of this made up of immigration. The productivity growth of 1.8% was below the lower bound target.

This target has never changed. In February 2010, exactly three years ago, the Economic Strategies Committee (ESC), again reaffirmed the same targets – 2% to 3% productivity growth, GDP growth of 3%-5% and, by implication, a labour

Page: 28

force growth of 1% to 2%. Despite saying that we must "moderate the future growth of the foreign workforce" in the ESC report, we saw a growth of non-resident labour force of 6.3% from 2010 to 2011, and 7.4% the following year, and a total labour force growth of 3.2% and 3.9% respectively.

In the Population White Paper, there is déjà vu. Exactly the same targets or projections. Why is Government saying then that the White Paper is proposing a major shift to slow down our rate of workforce and population growth, as if it were a major policy shift, when the policy and targets have actually stayed exactly the same from 2003 to 2010 to today? If the policy did not change, then the infrastructure problems today seem less because of the lack of forward planning but because the original plan was not adhered to.

Is this Government now able to boost productivity and is it really able to moderate the growth of the foreign workforce, when it has failed to do so previously?

I am also not sure how the 6.9 million is a "worst case scenario", and that they hope that the actual figure would turn out to be a much lower number. The Government can at least indirectly control both the demand for foreign labour and supply of the foreign population. And with so many large infrastructure projects lined up and all the investment promotion activities going on with full force, would the large increases of foreign labour become a fait accompli?

And if infrastructure is built and not fully utilised, would they not be unnecessarily wasted? These would be monies that can be better spent to address social concerns. Building excessive infrastructure will also only put more pressure on the need to bring in yet more foreign workers into the construction industry. And to clear land required to cater to a 6.9 million population, heritage and great nature reserves would be taken away at great loss to the legacy that we provide to our children, and simply wasted away for economic immigrants that we would not have.

Let me suggest that the long-term policy should be to cap the total population by 2030 at six million. This will require only allowing roughly a 1% annual workforce growth between now and 2020 – which can be mostly achieved through an increase in the resident labour force growth – and around 0.5% after. We should also slow down the intake of new naturalised citizens to 10,000 to 15,000 of new births. Otherwise, the impact on social cohesion and the building of our social identity will be too adverse.

Page: 29

In fact, having a lower workforce growth would have a positive impact on productivity. If labour is scarce, firms will substitute labour for capital, skills and technology. We also need to raise the wages and skill levels of foreign workers so that we can attract the more skilled ones here. In fact, the rising foreign worker levies have ironically dampened productivity. Where companies have to reduce wages of foreign workers to cope with the painful escalating costs, they end up only being able to attract lower and lower skilled workers with a lower reservation wage, and who are less productive.

Too many of our companies are addicted to cheap, less-skilled foreign labour. If we continue to feed them with cheap labour, it will only feed the addiction. These companies need restructuring, or rehabilitation, not more drugs.

Apart from having immigrants to simply reduce our non-replacing population, the Government seems to go beyond that because it believes that for Singapore to be a first-tier, dynamic city like London and New York, it needs to have a large population.

PWC's 2012 Report on Cities of Opportunity's ranking of the top cities of the world had smaller cities, like Toronto and Stockholm, ranked among the top five. Singapore is ranked seventh. In an increasingly virtual world, beta cities, smaller cities, like Toronto, San Francisco, Stockholm and Sydney – all with city populations smaller than Singapore – challenge the traditional cosmopolitan centres like New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. Interestingly, the same PWC report did a baseline number projection of all the cities for 2025 and it projected a 3.6 million employment and 5.7 million total population for Singapore in 2025.

You may say, well, Singapore is not just a city; it is a country. But if you again look at the 2012-2013 Global Competitiveness Report, four of the top five most competitive countries, including Singapore, have populations under 10 million, and Finland is just as populous as Singapore. And four of the top five countries, apart from Singapore, had a total population annual growth rate of 0.6% from 2001-2010, which is below the OECD average of 0.7%, well below ours of 2.5% between 2000 and 2010, and that projected for the next two decades.

Fundamentally, I think that the population concerns are serious but unnecessarily pessimistic. Yes, we have a low TFR, even if we can increase TFR to 1.

5. And the conventional wisdom is that economic dynamism will definitely wane as citizens of prime working age shrink and the healthcare burden

Page: 30

increases and the knee-jerk response hence is then to increase immigration.

I think we can live with a cap of the population at six million by 2030 and still be very dynamic. In fact, many vibrant economies, as I mentioned, among the OECD countries, are already below an old-age support ratio of four and are moving towards a ratio of two as a long-term sustainable rate.

In fact, I believe Singapore is very well-equipped, compared to most OECD countries, to cope with population ageing. First, Singapore is a high savings country, nationally and individually, unlike many developed countries which are mired in debt. Dissaving helps smooth out consumption over time.

Economist Ryan Herzog from Gonzaga University, in a March 2012 paper, showed that the effects of population ageing on growth is weakened as saving rates decline and trade openness remains high. In other words, Singapore would need to save less and consume more, to sustain our growth rates.

In Singapore, we need a deeper discussion also on an orderly and sustainable use of the nation's reserves and people's savings to maintain economic vitality. One measure is the use of reserves to invest in new strategic industries. Temasek Holdings, in particular, instead of just focusing on generating high financial returns from overseas investments that have no positive spin-offs for the local economy, ought to be vested with this mission.

But I do think there is much to do still in other areas to maintain our competitiveness. We need a more compelling economic model that includes how we can execute well those economic strategies that promote productivity and innovation. Obviously, we need more than the Productivity and Innovation Credit. We need to reinvent how we see ourselves doing business and creating value in future. We need to invest in disruptive innovations, producing not just the highest end goods, but the lower end products and services that are demanded in emerging Asia.

We must stop simply flogging the higher productivity horse, if productivity is merely about doing the same with less. What we need to do is, to do different things, and this depends on people driving innovation. We need to revamp our education system to focus on young people who are enterprising and think out of the box and have the passion and stop just focusing on high PISA scores as a target.

Page: 31

In the short term, I know that many companies are suffering labour shortages which are affecting operations. I work in the non-profit sector which feels the brunt probably even more severely than the private and public sectors and have many friends who are business owners.

For us to go up the value chain, we need to continually restructure. We need creative destruction, and many low value-adding businesses would need to exit. In the older days, I think we worked more actively, for example, with our neighbours to develop the Sijori growth triangle, and we would actively identify and negotiate the closing down and relocation of low value added manufacturing plants to our neighbours. So, what are the equivalent plans today? Because if you exit these firms, and, with them, the lower skilled foreign labour, you can bring in higher skilled foreign labour to fill the positions at higher VA companies coming in through EDB's attraction. So, why do we express great alarm today when some firms leave, when I think it should be naturally expected that some will do so and should do so? Of course, we should be alarmed if the ones that we want to stay, leave.

What we must do better is to help these companies exit and adjust. Delaying would only postpone the pain, and reduce our ability to transition to a knowledge-based economy. There needs to be industry-specific micro-economic policies and programmes to deal with the unit contacts of each industry. But we also need strong safety nets and transitional programmes for workers who are dislocated in the process.

SMEs must also consider merging for greater scale economies. We must also upgrade jobs, especially blue collar jobs. Such jobs should be respected and they deserve a decent living wage. This will attract more Singaporeans into such jobs. In Australia, for example, the blue collar workers are the new rich, as we read in the papers, and, in fact, I think last year, they reported that they earn more on average than those sitting behind a desk. Construction workers there earn an average of S$58,000 a year, and their total construction costs, mind you, are only marginally higher than ours.

However, I do accept that, in the short term, it will take some time to adjust. Hence, I think the Workers' Party's position is too drastic and there needs to be some net foreign labour growth in the short term for companies that are still restructuring and to import people with skills that we may not have enough of.

But well beyond the economic issues, there are the social concerns, which I believe are at least as critical as the economic ones. And these have not

Page: 32

received sufficient attention in the paper, even if the proposal to moderate the population increase to six million is adopted. In the first place, I think we have an obsessive focus on GDP, even if it is just a tool. A recent Bloomberg editorial, reproduced in Today, makes good points about how GDP is an imperfect measure of progress.

GDP only measures output which has a monetary value and makes no claims on the value of that output to the human person or society. It includes things that are profitable and not very beneficial to society, like cigarettes, and I will even say things like excessive tuition; and excludes things that are not profitable but beneficial, like the work of the homemaker or the volunteer. GDP also undervalues the work of people working so hard in the charity sector, where workers typically take a passion discount.

If we are talking about what benefits Singaporeans, why are we focused mostly on economic, physical, material and financial indicators? Singaporeans are saying that they want broader measures of success. And Singaporeans are reacting strongly to the White Paper because many are questioning how the high average GDP growth over the past few years has benefited them. And I am not even talking about whether higher order needs, such as self-actualisation, are being met.

GDP also only measures average income and, as we know, our own high GDP growth has been positively correlated with widening income disparity. We need to pay much more careful attention to this and, in this regard, I would urge the Government to reconsider the minimum wage, which has been implemented well in some economies with little adverse impact on employment. Otherwise, we would just be in the company of only a handful of countries like Yemen, Somalia and Tonga with no minimum wage. Redistributing income to low-income earners is never the same as being able to earn a fair living wage in the first place. The former affects one's sense of self-worth, while the latter preserves the dignity of the human person. For the lower income and the middle income, life continues to be a struggle. On the ground, the issues of the escalating cost of living and the physical infrastructure squeeze are well enunciated.

I have argued previously that we need two Singapores in terms of costs to cater to the widening income disparity. In the past, I could say that we had cheap options in Singapore. But, nowadays, cheap options are increasingly being eliminated. The increasing on-the-ground perception among the middle and lower income is that the Government is pro-business and pro-rich. Singapore is one of the best places to live in, but only if you can afford it. We have just

Page: 33

been ranked the sixth most expensive city in the world in one survey.

I believe that the Government needs to do more to stabilise costs, as it is difficult for many households to deal with high and unexpected cost increases. Unfettered free markets do not produce the best outcomes. In fact, are markets really free in Singapore when actually Government intervenes and controls quite a lot of policy levers? In general, the Government needs to intervene more to ameliorate the effects of economic policies, which include the population policies.

But, I think, well beyond the issues of income equity, costs and personal well-being, there are the issues of identity, values and belonging which many have spoken about.

We might be a nation of immigrants. But the reality before and after the Independence of Singapore is quite different. Before Independence, we were a British colony and I think the issue of building a national identity did not arise. In the early days, there was preoccupation with immense social problems as immigrants flowed in. Later, after the war, the focus was on meeting basic needs and catering to the demand for more self-governance.

After Independence, we are trying to forge a Singaporean identity, even as we try to meet the basic needs of all Singaporeans. We are now not yet 50 years old. And in nation-building terms, we are a mere teenager. As teenagers, we are still unsure about our own identity. It is fluid, it is evolving; and there is a lot of angst as manifested perhaps in us finding our voice and expressing our views strongly. There are also, of course, many real concerns about the stresses of living in Singapore. But just as teens find comfort in friends who are like them, Singaporeans, too, want to engage with other Singaporeans in the common purpose of building a shared identity and dealing with common problems.

As a people, Singaporeans welcome diversity and have always been welcoming of foreigners, because we ourselves are diverse. But if we are mixed with too many people who are too different from us, this crucial part of identity building goes awry. And even while we argue about the exact numbers, let us make sure we continue to treat migrants well. They are persons with their dignity, too.

But at the end of the day, Singaporeans also need to feel that they are truly valued as persons, with unique interests and desires, and that they are not just a factor of production. They need to feel that they are the ends. That they matter

Page: 34

as a group also, with a shared set of values, shared heritage and shared experiences that build that common identity.

We want to build a home, not a hotel. A hotel may be more luxurious than our home and have more services; but we could not possibly afford to stay there forever. When we live in a home that we are proud of, we can then be more welcoming of foreign guests to stay. And maybe then we will feel in a happier frame of mind to have more babies.

Mdm Speaker, I listened to the debate with wonder in the last few days. At first, the PAP seemed content on debating the Workers' Party's proposal more than the White Paper. Then, some PAP Members began to echo Workers' Party positions. I appreciate the honour that is bestowed on the Workers' Party by this kind of attention. Madam, I must remind the House that what is called a roadmap on a White Paper requesting this House to endorse will change Singapore drastically in less than 20 years' time.

The Workers' Party thinks that this roadmap is wrong. The PAP Government is driving with an upside-down roadmap. We are not trying to be funny when we change the title around to "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore". As a rational and responsible co-driver, it is our duty to tell the driver that he is reading the roadmap upside down. Mdm Speaker, allow me to distribute a table to show the differences between the Government's proposal and the Workers' Party's proposal.

Yes, please. [A handout was distributed to hon Members.]

The first problem is that Singapore has seen declining birth rates for nearly 40 years. Yet, all the Government is doing in the latest enhancement to the Marriage and Parenthood Package is to increase incentives to get young couples to have more babies. Why is the Government continuing to use a method that has not worked? Why does it not see there are serious roadblocks, such as high housing costs, lack of family and social support, lack of quality childcare options, and bad work-life balance that are preventing young couples from marrying earlier and having more babies?

The second problem is that low birth rates are leading to a shrinking citizen core. Instead of focusing on removing the roadblocks to set birth rates on the

Page: 35

path to recovery, the Government wants to use immigration to top up shortfalls. At the highest rate of handling out new citizenships at current birth rates, there will be 25,000 new citizens to 30,000 citizen births a year. This is almost one is to one.

The third problem is immigrant integration. Given the friction between Singaporeans and immigrants in recent years, my confidence in the Government to solve this problem is not very strong. The best way to integrate immigrants is organically through the family and the school; not the highly politicised People's Association (PA).

The fourth problem is the ageing population. Here, the Government needs to have a serious mindset change. The Government sees our senior citizens as fiscal and healthcare burdens. The Government's solution is again immigration, as though by increasing the support ratio, our senior citizens will be magically supported.

Is the Government admitting that the CPF scheme is causing insufficient savings that our senior citizens will become a burden? Is the Government admitting that healthcare costs are spiraling out of control that our senior citizens will need to be subsidised heavily?

The fifth problem is a slowing economy. The key plank in the Workers' Party's proposal is to increase the resident workforce through promotion of labour force participation of women and seniors. Like the Government, we aim for the same stretch rate of productivity growth. But the Government's solution is contradictory. It tells businesses that they are addicted to cheap foreign workers and need to improve their productivity instead. Yet, the Government is proposing to use foreign workforce growth to boost the slowing economy. Would foreign workforce growth not suppress productivity growth? This is like trying to go forward and backward at the same time.

The sixth problem is infrastructural strain. The Prime Minister recently admitted that the Government lacked 20/20 foresight and failed to prepare the urban infrastructure to accommodate sudden immigration inflow. Instead of rethinking the immigration policy, it now promises to build ahead to accommodate more immigrants. The Land Use Plan promises to build a high quality living environment for all Singaporeans. But the plan is drawn up to support the future population, which will be majority immigrants.

Page: 36

The trouble with the Government is not that it lacks 20/20 foresight in infrastructural development, but that it fails to recognise that the problem is its immigration policy in the first place. The problems of low birth rates and ageing population lie in a social and physical environment that is not conducive for family life. Therefore, the solutions must be sought by focusing on promoting the quality of life of Singaporean families. By focusing on immigration, the Government is using the cause of the problems today as the solution for tomorrow.

What the Government is doing is kicking the can down the road. The Government has been using immigration to grow the workforce in the past 30 years. It is proposing to continue to do so for the next 20 years. The Government said that it "hopes" for an increase in the TFR to 1.4 or 1.

5. Madam, this is a matter of national survival, and the Government is only weakly hoping with an ambiguous target with no specified timetable. Without a TFR recovery plan with clear targets, our birth rates are not going to go up. So, when 2030 arrives, what solution are we going to turn to? Immigration again? Another White Paper to project a population size of 10 million in 2050 as a roadmap? Anyway, let me tell this House, if we travel down this roadmap, Singaporeans will become a minority in their own country.

In 2001, the United Nations published a study to consider whether Replacement Migration is a viable option and a solution to a declining and ageing population. The study warned that "The levels of migration needed to offset population ageing are extremely large, and in all cases entail vastly more immigration than occurred in the past." The study argued that comprehensive reassessments of many established economic, social and political policies and programmes in a long-term perspective are needed to address the challenges.

20/20 foresight requires the Government to think long term, and long term, must be 50 years down the road, not a mere 17 years. Birth rate recovery takes a long time. We need to start now. Stop kicking the can down the road. As long as immigration continues to be an easy option, there is nothing to stop the Government from taking the easy path.

Focus on TFR recovery now. While we move towards TFR recovery, the Workers' Party proposes that we increase labour-force participation rates to grow the resident workforce without adding to the population.

This is a much more sustainable solution than an ever-growing population on a small island. And let us not forget Singapore is a nation, not a city in a big

Page: 37

nation. A sustainable Singapore is one that keeps its national identity strong and this requires the population to be made up of majority Singaporeans.

Continued dependence on foreign workforce growth will just kick the can of economic restructuring down the road. Economic restructuring is necessarily painful. Immigration prevents us from moving away from labour-intensive industries to develop an innovative and entrepreneurial economy with capital-intensive medium enterprises. The Government can help ease the pain by providing more support to local SMEs as we go through this economic transition.

The Government has tried to downplay the 6.9 million population number for 2030. It is now a projection, a planning parameter, a worst-case scenario. Can the Government clarify once and for all whether it has control over immigration or is immigration an impending tsunami we have to plan for? I do not understand how 6.9 million can be a worst-case scenario. Do we not have to pass through the best-case scenario of 5.8 million to get to 6.9 million? The Government seems to be saying that it does not have the control of the bus it is driving Singaporeans to town, and is not able to stop at the good part of the town and we all may end up in the bad part of the town. This is unacceptable.

But even before we can talk about getting to town, does the Government have a destination to bring us to? It has a roadmap, but a roadmap is useless without a destination. The Government's roadmap is saying, "just continue to drive straight ahead at the same speed". But the Workers' Party wants to arrive in a sustainable Singapore with a dynamic Singaporean majority. Madam, I will now speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, people are the core of a nation. Without people, there is no nation. People are the foundation of a nation and the core factor affecting the prosperity of a nation. Therefore, population is a very important issue, but it is also a very complicated issue where there is wide-ranging ramification of its effect with just a small tweak. More importantly, population issue should not be treated like any other policy issues and simply handled based on macro-analysis of the statistics. People are not commodities and could not be treated as mere numbers.