A non-conversation

Hah. So Singapore will grow in size after all to hold our huddled masses. Although looking at the map on ST’s page 1, you wouldn’t have a clue as to what was going on? What in heaven’s name is that? A map of a bigger Singapore? If so, which parts? Seems a waste of space to me – just a cut-off of Singapore with pictures superimposed on it.

Back to the point:
You know, there are a few things which stood out for me in today’s extensive reports of land use, but they have nothing to do with the proposals. It’s a lot to process…

I am referring to what some ministers said:

DPM Teo Chee Hean: “Let me be clear, the White Paper focuses on the interests and benefits of Singaporeans.’’

Hmm….I should certainly hope so. I wonder if DPM Teo realises how he comes across…In my view, he sounds pissed. At the way people don’t seem to understand the rationale for the White Paper? That we’re not sure that the G has done its best to balance the no-immigrant camp and the more-immigrant camp scenarios?

National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan: “Please don’t worry.’’

Thank you very much for the assurance but, of course, we worry. We should. We shouldn’t be expecting the G to do all our worrying for us. We want to be assured that we are in good hands, and raise questions and concerns.
There are other reports too which made me wonder what was going on.

PMO Minister Lim Swee Say: “Just imagine if 10 years ago, we had a Singapore Conversation to talk about one day 10 years from then… population may reach 5.4 million, then start to put in place infrastructure, housing, MRT. Today, we will be much better off, isn’t it?”

Aaah…so the Singapore Conversation is about this? As expected, the report in ST showed that the focus of participants was on the population report. You know what? Why wasn’t it a Green Paper, which is meant for public consultation and therefore can be the subject of the Singapore Conversation? Why is it a White Paper, which is a firmer indication of what is to come?

Education Minister Heng Swee Keat, who heads the Singapore Conversation team, was also at the same event as Mr Lim. Rather intriguingly, he said the Singapore conversation should not stop despite the White Paper. There was “value in having both of them in parallel, he added, though he did not elaborate’’. Good on ST to point this out.

So could he please elaborate? Because why is he having a conversation with the rest of us when some directions have been set for the country in the White Paper? No way, we can change directions now right? I mean, all that work by civil servants will go to waste.

You know what. Actually I think we should be thankful to have such a meticulous and hardworking Government. It is quite wonderful to see how the different agencies have come together to put up a package that encompasses so much, whether green spaces for parks, more homes, transport, creating a babydom, more living space through reclamation, more university places…

I think an earlier generation would probably sit back and let the Government do all the thinking and work everything out for us. But times, they are a-changing. People will be obsessed with headline figures, yes, but I can bet that many are poring over the details or even coming up with radical ways of solving the population dilemma, like fining every couple who don’t want children to help pay for those who do!

This is why the timing of the Population report in the midst of an on-going Singapore Conversation is so disconcerting to me. The Government wants to be efficient in making projections, yet make a show of consulting the people? Those projections must also be based on Singaporeans’ values and attitudes, for example, towards foreigners, meritocracy, work stress.

What is our Singapore Conversation going to be about now?

The people and the Population White Paper

GETTING the people behind the Population white paper is going to be one tough job. I know the Prime Minister has said that we should look beyond the headline numbers and think deeper about the country’s future.

But as Lydia Lim said in ST, it’s the everyday journey that counts. The instinctive reaction of Singaporeans reading the newspapers today would be to recoil. Yes, recoil. It’s too hard to visualise how even more people can be squeezed into this little red dot. More transport links, more homes, more green spaces – they simply can’t figure out how this will mean you won’t have to be squashed in a train, never mind that a station is a 10 minute walk away.

And while the Paper says that the density is much better than Hong Kong’s – 13,000 people per sq km versus 22,000 people per sq km, all people can think about is the return of shoebox apartments.

Today had analysts all making the point that steps had to be taken to convince Singaporeans. More engagement and more transparency about the numbers, such as exactly where the foreigners would fit in on the jobs-front.

You see, tangled in the emotions is not just that Singapore will be crowded, but also unfamiliar. It breeds insecurity.
The Paper has a chapter on integrating foreigners who want to become PRs or new citizens. It’s the same-old, same-old in my view.

By the way, we should also look at the marriage figures. Those four in 10 Singaporeans who marry foreigners, do they settle down here to have Singapore-born children? Or do they move with their foreign spouses? If their foreign spouses, especially husbands, find it hard to sink roots here, then it’s likely the Singapore wife would move with her husband. But there are no plans now to ease the policy of making them citizens, according to Grace Fu as reported in ST. Seems to me we should be looking deeper into this “leakage’’.

Then those 200,000 Singaporeans living abroad. I don’t suppose they will return to our sunny isle even as steps are made to engage them, especially with news that it might get even more crowded.

I reckon the argument in the White Paper can be encapsulated like this: We are not having enough babies, and we’re hoping for more. Even if this works, we don’t have enough manpower to sustain our economy (which is going to slow down) and standard of living. That’s why we have to educate ourselves to as high a level as possible, so that we can still afford some foreigners to do the jobs we don’t want to do and keep the best jobs for ourselves. This is also so we can support that cohort of baby boomers, who are going to be depending on even fewer young people’s taxes. But don’t worry, we’ll make sure you will live well, in homes that aren’t too small, travel on trains that are not too crowded, and enjoy cycling on green paths.

You think the argument will work on those who won’t be trawling through the White Paper (a very dense paper methinks) I think the on-going Singapore Conversation is going to be hijacked by these issues. I can’t see Singaporeans talking about anything else when they have population headline figures stuck in their heads. Maybe that’s why we are having a Singapore Conversation now? That White Paper is a discussion paper right? Not cast in stone? (See earlier post)

You know, I am wondering if Singapore will become a place where Singaporeans, here and elsewhere, will hold a strong emotional attachment to but, preferably, from a distance.

Eye-popping population numbers

I am going to be a bit sour here about the White Paper on Population….

Anyone who has worked in the media or with the media will know that the right way to introduce stuff is to give the big picture, paint several scenarios, outline the problems and then propose solutions. Instead, the G went ahead to announce the Transport Masterplan and the Marriage and Parenthood package. Okay, it’s the prerogative of the G to announce whatever it wants whenever it wants. And if it decides that announcing them during a BE campaign will help its cause, well…it didn’t.

But I wish I had read the full works on population before having to read about what parents will get for having an extra baby. That’s because I happen to one of those who won’t get a single baby perk and will have to contribute my tax dollars to the pro-family policies. Painting the bigger picture, with future PR and future new citizen numbers thrown in, would have given the population a better idea of why we need to spend $2 billion a year on the package to achieve a fertility rate of 1.6. You see the full picture, not just the perks. But I guess during an election, the perks count. Or didn’t.

Frankly, now that the cart has been put before the horse, I wonder how the media will go about reporting the White Paper. I suppose the focus will be on the numbers. I actually had some difficulty pulling them together because there was a mix of citizens, new citizens, PRs, resident population, non-resident population in both absolute numbers and proportions.

These are the key pars:

Singapore’s total population of residents and non-residents in 2020 is projected to be between 5.8 and 6 million, depending on our fertility trends, life expectancy, as well as our social and economic needs. The resident population (comprising citizens and PRs) is projected to be 4 to 4.1 million, of which citizens alone will make up 3.5 to 3.6 million.
By 2030, Singapore’s total population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million. There is a wider band of uncertainty, and the actual population will again depend on factors such as our fertility trends and life expectancy, the global and regional environment, our economic structure and social needs. The resident population (comprising citizens and PRs) is projected to be 4.2 to 4.4 million, of which citizens alone will make up 3.6 to 3.8 million.

This par below is only on the immigration part that contributes to stats above:

To stop our citizen population from shrinking and sustain the citizen population with a stable age distribution, we will take in between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens each year. The citizen population could be between 3.5 and 3.6 million in 2020, and between 3.6 and 3.8 million in 2030. We will grant about 30,000 PRs each year, in order to maintain the PR population at between 0.5 and 0.6 million for a stream of good quality candidates for citizenship;

I figured that what we want to know is just how many people are we intending to squeeze onto this little red dot. And who they might be. I came up with this from the mass of statistics.

Today, we have 5.31 million people, comprising 3.29m citizens, 0.53m PRs and 1.49m foreigners who live here.
(not counting PRs, citizens are still number more than twice as many for foreigners here)
In 2020, we will have 5.8 to 6 million people, comprising 3.5 to 3.6m citizens, 0.5 to 0.6m PRs and 1.8 to 1.9m foreigners who live here
In 2030, we will have 6.5 to 6.9m people, comprising 3.6 to 3.8m citizens, 0.5 to 0.6m PRs and 2.3 to 2.5m foreigners who live here.
(This time, citizens will be about 1.5times or so more than foreigners)

How come the White Paper didn’t just chart it like this??

Of course, everything may change depending on fertility rate, economic growth etc etc. That huge figure of 2.3 to 2.5m foreigners? It’s because our workforce growth will slow. But hey, apparently by then, most Singaporeans ( a Singapore core that will get smaller over the years) will belong to the PMET category.

Funny thing is, we not reclaiming more land?
Also, if Singapore (god forbid!) gets attacked in 2030, who or what are we defending? What sort of home will we be defending with so many foreigners in our midst?

Change or no change

I found ST’s page 1 story on casinos a bit baffling. I always thought that newspapers report changes, but here is a headline which says that Govt’s approach to regulating casinos HASN’T changed: Iswaran.

It’s fine by me if the talk was that the approach is being changed or there is fear and anticipation that it will be changed. Although to be replaced by what, I can’t tell.

Anyway, the story was about changes to the Casino Control laws which have been much talked about, particularly on limiting the “financially vulnerable’’ people’s access to casinos. If there is a change in approach at all, it is that the G is hoping to further minimise social ills – which the MPs roundly applauded with some even wanting more done. I suppose this should count as a “tightening’’ of approach – not a change?

In any case, there I was trying to figure out if I am right about the “real’’ changes (go count the number of times change/changes was used in the article) and I was getting stymied by G reiterating its approach… Only later did I get the news that some committee is being set up, in addition to the curbs on the “financial vulnerable’’. In contrast, I thought Today did a better job of giving the news quick although it did ramble in the end trying to take in MPs’ comments.

On the other hand, I couldn’t find any reference to Teo Chee Hean’s admission that infrastructural development didn’t keep pace with population growth in ST. Maybe I went blind trying to wade through the parliamentary reports. If so, I stand corrected. But it was highlighted in BT and angled that way. It was in Today too, but under the headline that the Population paper will be ready in January. I don’t think that’s a new point – and maybe it’s just a way of capturing what the DPM said.

People, oh people…

One of the objectives of the media must be to give citizens information to develop an opinion or make it easier for them to live their lives. Sometimes, the media points the way, taking apart a long-winded report or speech to give you the salient points (from their point of view of course) So there I was hoping that the various media have torn apart the Population report, pick out the key stuff and save me the trouble of reading the tome and figuring the statistics.

So I have from ST the point that the G wants feedback on birthrate, immigration etc. Not once, but twice within the paper. Helpfully, it seems the G has framed some discussion points like whether we would still tighten inflow of immigrants even if it means the population ages and shrinks and the foreign spouses of Singaporeans find it tough to get PR or citizenship.

I suppose there is a shock factor here: that there are plenty of Singaporeans married to foreigners who will want their spouses to live here – and they really haven’t said much in this on-going debate so far. Trouble is, how many of them – and their children – are here? ST doesn’t say but a graphic gives a 15 per cent figure of the non-resident population for dependents of citizens (old and new I presume), PRs and work pass holders.

From Today, which led off with new information instead of exhortation:

Immigration statistics revealed by the Government for the first time showed that, between 2007 and last year, the majority of those granted citizenship and permanent residence were not economically active — with the number of dependents outstripping working individuals. During this period, there were 259,040 new permanent residents (PRs) and 92,310 new citizens. Working individuals accounted for 48 per cent of the new PRs and 38 per cent of the new citizens.

I’m not so sure how to read the above statistics. So those that are not economically active are their wives and children? And if this continues, are we supposed to close the door on dependents of foreigners who want to live, and the foreign dependents of Singapore citizens?

The Today story jumps straight into population experts saying OF COURSE, you must give the foreign spouses citizenship.

One other question posed by the G which ST reported was which category of foreigners should be tightened? The maids, construction workers, your foreign spouse….Again, I guess this is to shock Singaporeans into thinking a bit deeper about the us-versus-them divide.

I wonder though if more fundamental questions should be asked, like whether we really need more people (that is, foreigners) to accelerate or maintain economic growth? Maybe, our productivity efforts will bear fruit….don’t laugh. Or if the answer is no, would we accept (without complaint or whining) a slower rate of growth in exchange for feeling better about living in our own country (yep, loaded question but that’s really what the discomfort is about right?)

BT has a rather strange angling – it was on all the G’s plan to expand infrastructure over the next decade to cope with population growth over the years, even though inflow of immigrants has fallen since 2009. So there were stats on roads, rail, housing, medical care etc and how much has been budgeted for them. Is all this new? Or is it just a compilation of past announcements? How does this plan gel with the G’s efforts to collect feedback? Is this to meet current demand? I mean, looks like everything’s fixed for the next 10 years…

Never mind all that. I hope Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, speak up. I say young Singaporeans (those in school, about to leave school, or just starting work) because their life experience has been shaped differently from the rest. Already, they are studying with non-Singaporeans, interacting with them, and even doing National Service with them. Their parents and older folk have been shaped differently and will perhaps veer emotionally towards maintaining the status quo or hark back to a time before S-pass holders, Chinese national hawkers and Indian IT experts.

Anyway, it’s time the whole population talked. And I guess I still have to go read that Population report for a fuller picture.