2/27/13

1/77

This report was printed from Singapore Parliament

website.

Parliament No: 12Session No: 1Volume No: 90Sitting No: 6Sitting Date: 08-02-2013

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SINGAPORE

OFFICIAL REPORT

TWELFTH PARLIAMENTPART III OF FIRST SESSION

VOLUME 90

Friday, 8 February, 2013

The House met at 12.30 pm

PRESENT:

Mdm SPEAKER (Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong)).

Mr Ang Hin Kee (Ang Mo Kio).

Mr Ang Wei Neng (Jurong).Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tampines).

Mr Chan Chun Sing (Tanjong Pagar), Acting Minister for Social and Family Development and Senior

Minister of State for Defence.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied).

Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member).Mr Charles Chong (Joo Chiat), Deputy Speaker.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah).Mr R Dhinakaran (Nominated Member).

Ms Faizah Jamal (Nominated Member).Mr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member).

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade).

Mr Arthur Fong (West Coast).

Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng (Pioneer).

Ms Foo Mee Har (West Coast).

Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien (Yuhua), Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for the Environment

and Water Resources and Second Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Gan Kim Yong (Chua Chu Kang), Minister for Health and Government Whip.

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol).Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song (Non-Constituency Member).

Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade).

Mr Hawazi Daipi (Sembawang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and Acting

Minister for Manpower.

Mr Heng Chee How (Whampoa), Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office and Deputy Leader of

2/27/13

2/77

the House.Mr Heng Swee Keat (Tampines), Minister for Education.

Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh).

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio).

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar), Senior Minister of State for Education and Law.

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio).Mr S Iswaran (West Coast), Minister, Prime Minister's Office, Second Minister for Home Affairs and

Second Minister for Trade and Industry.

Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol).

Mr Khaw Boon Wan (Sembawang), Minister for National Development.

Dr Amy Khor Lean Suan (Hong Kah North), Minister of State for Health and Manpower and Deputy

Government Whip.

Ms Janice Koh (Nominated Member).

Dr Lam Pin Min (Sengkang West).

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon).

Mr Desmond Lee (Jurong).

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang).Mr Lee Hsien Loong (Ang Mo Kio), Prime Minister.

Ms Lee Li Lian (Punggol East).Mr Lee Yi Shyan (East Coast), Senior Minister of State for National Development and Trade and

Industry.Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah).Mr Laurence Lien (Nominated Member).

Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member).Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten).

Mr Lim Hng Kiang (West Coast), Minister for Trade and Industry.Mr Lim Swee Say (East Coast), Minister, Prime Minister's Office.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied).Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon).

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol).Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied).

Ms Low Yen Ling (Chua Chu Kang).Mr Lui Tuck Yew (Moulmein-Kallang), Minister for TransportMr Mah Bow Tan (Tampines).

Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M (Tampines), Senior Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs.Dr Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman (East Coast), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence

and Minister for National Development.Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap (Aljunied).

Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim (Nee Soon), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Minister for Transport.

Dr Lily Neo (Tanjong Pagar).Dr Ng Eng Hen (Bishan-Toa Payoh), Minister for Defence and Leader of the House.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong (Tampines).Mr David Ong (Jurong).Mr Ong Teng Koon (Sembawang).

2/27/13

3/77

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang).

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang).Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied).

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade), Deputy Speaker.Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio).

Mr K Shanmugam (Nee Soon), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Law.Ms Sim Ann (Holland-Bukit Timah), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications

and Information and Minister for Education.Mr Sitoh Yih Pin (Potong Pasir).

Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong (Radin Mas), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Acting Minister for Culture,Community and Youth and Minister for Foreign Affairs.Mr Tan Chuan-Jin (Marine Parade), Acting Minister for Manpower and Senior Minister of State for

National Development.Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member).

Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo (East Coast).Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (Nee Soon).

Mr Teo Chee Hean (Pasir Ris-Punggol), Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for NationalSecurity and Minister for Home Affairs.

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang), Deputy Government Whip.Mrs Josephine Teo (Bishan-Toa Payoh), Minister of State for Finance and Transport.

Mr Teo Ser Luck (Pasir Ris-Punggol), Minister of State for Trade and Industry.Mr Teo Siong Seng (Nominated Member).Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam (Jurong), Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade).Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai (Moulmein-Kallang).

Mr Vikram Nair (Sembawang).Dr Vivian Balakrishnan (Holland-Bukit Timah), Minister for the Environment and Water Resources.

Mr Wong Kan Seng (Bishan-Toa Payoh).Mr Lawrence Wong (West Coast), Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Senior

Minister of State for Communications and Information.Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim (Moulmein-Kallang), Minister for Communications and Information andMinister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs.

Mr Alex Yam (Chua Chu Kang).Mr Yee Jenn Jong (Non-Constituency Member).

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang (Ang Mo Kio).Mr Zainal Sapari (Pasir Ris-Punggol).Mr Zainudin Nordin (Bishan-Toa Payoh).

Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang).

ABSENT:

Dr Chia Shi-Lu (Tanjong Pagar).

Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Tanjong Pagar).

Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat (East Coast).

Ms Tan Su Shan (Nominated Member).

2/27/13

4/77

Mr Alvin Yeo (Chua Chu Kang).

Permission to Members to be Absent

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following

Members have been granted permission by the Speaker to be absent from sittings of Parliament (or anyCommittee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:

Name From To

(2013) (2013)

Mr Lee Kuan Yew 08 Feb 08 Feb

Ms Tan Su Shan 08 Feb 08 Feb

08 Feb 08 Feb

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 10 Feb 13 Feb

Dr Teo Ho Pin 14 Feb 14 Feb

19 Feb 26 Feb

22 Mar 24Mar

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Refining the COE System

1 Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Transport if LTA will modify the current COE biddingsystem to allow for balloting of fixed-priced COEs by user categories while retaining the quota ceiling.

The Minister of State for Transport (Mrs Josephine Teo) (for the Minister for Transport) : Mdm

Speaker, let me first thank the Member for her suggestion, which we ourselves in the Ministry have consideredbefore.

The big challenge in a balloting system for COEs is that even those who have no real intention to buy a car would

try their luck. This is especially because the “prize” of the ballot, in this case a COE, will be much sought afterand a person who wins the ballot can quite easily decide to cash out and literally “make a small fortune”. It is not

that we have anything against people getting lucky but such a system will in fact generate additional demand, and

reduce the chances for those who really want to buy a car. It would also lead to a black market where balloted

COEs are resold to genuine car buyers at a much higher price.

This in fact was the experience when Beijing introduced a balloting system for cars in 2011. The Beijing

2/27/13

5/77

municipal government released about 240,000 quotas that year, allocated through a monthly lottery system. This

number is only one-third of the 750,000 cars registered in the previous year of 2010. Applications to the lottery

have since increased exponentially, exceeding a million applicants for the monthly quotas of 20,000 and thatnumber is still rising. So every month, 20,000 quotas, but also, one million applicants every month right now. It is

anybody's guess how many of those one million applicants are trying their luck for the first, second or even nth

time. Furthermore, the lotteries have made under-the-table deals a very lucrative business.

Balloting also does not help us to better satisfy the demand for cars, unless we give special preference for certain

user groups. This, however, has serious drawbacks, as I have explained to the House earlier this week. In

addition, we would have to fix some arbitrary price for COEs given out under a balloting system. It has to behigh enough to deter speculators and yet not too high for people who would like to own cars. The Member will

agree that this is next to impossible as any price that is lower than what people are willing to pay will attract

speculators.

To summarise, balloting essentially means telling genuine buyers, whether they are families or businesses, that

getting a COE depends on the luck of the draw or having to resort to the black market. Neither of this is very

reassuring and clearly not an improvement over the present system.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang) : Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the reply.

The ever escalating COE is a bug bear among Singaporeans, and there is also talk that potentially, the COE can

go up to more than $100,000. I was just wondering if Ministry could consider at least studying what are the

models available around the world and get Singaporeans to maybe come up with our own model, and addressthis bug bear. We could use the Singapore Conversation series as a platform to do that. I think we need to

engage Singaporeans to look into this. Let them have the information about the fact that you already have studied

this model or other models, and engage them, so that we can perhaps draw some wisdom from them as well.

Mrs Josephine Teo : Mdm Speaker, I thank Ms Denise Phua for her comments. Indeed, we share the

concerns that Members have over the COE prices. As I have shared earlier this week, we are open to reviewing

a number of ways in which we could improve the system, for example, we could look at how the categories aredefined.

I totally agree with the Member that it is an area that we need to reach out more and share with Singaporeans

why some of the options that are very well-intentioned, do however have some serious drawbacks or difficultiesin implementation. Madam, what I can share with the Member is that for a start, in the Ministry’s website, there

is something that we are preparing that will help to articulate all the different considerations for suggestions that

members of the public have put forward, which are really good suggestions to begin with but then they have

some implementation difficulties. So that is something that we are working on. And I would also agree with herthat if there are opportunities for us to go out and explain the different options that the Ministry has considered,

we would be very happy to do so. At the same time, let me reassure her that this is an area that we will try and

see if there are ways to refine.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah) : Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for the

response. As a follow-up question, and to raise the issue that I raised two days ago again, if there could be a re-

consideration for those who treat the road as their livelihood. Therefore, commercial vehicles, companies, SMEs,who are requiring transport or transport of their workers and tools for their trade, and if there is a review of the

COE system or a tweak of it, could priority or consideration be had to this group? I understand that there are

two auction processes for the COE, but if that could be tweaked, I would be every grateful for that.

2/27/13

6/77

Mrs Josephine Teo : Madam, again I thank Mr Christopher de Souza for raising this concern on behalf of

especially small business owners. I do have a lot of sympathy for this group because they do need it for their

livelihood. Yes, we have made the additional registration fee as low as 5% for Category C vehicle owners, ascompared to 100% of the Open Market Value for car owners. So there is already a big price difference

between what business owners will have to pay for goods vehicles and what individual owners are currently

paying for the privilege of car ownership. But I take his point and it is something that we are very mindful of, andwe are looking at some possibilities.

Dr Lim Wee Kiak (Nee Soon) : Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of State whether the review

of the COE is on the way. If it is, then when will this review be completed?

Mrs Josephine Teo : The COE system is actually quite complex with many different dimensions. One of the

key things that we are trying to do is to ensure that whatever it is that we do to the COE does not distort the

market inappropriately. I understand that there is a sense of urgency. What I can say to the Member is that wealso very mindful of the urgency.

Mdm Speaker : Order. End of Question Time.

12.38 pm

A Sustainable Population for a DynamicSingapore

(Motion)

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [4 February 2013]

“That this House endorses Paper Cmd. 1 of 2013 on "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore" as the

population policy roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenge, and Paper Misc. 1 of 2013 on "AHigh Quality Living Environment for all Singaporeans" as the land use plan to support Singapore's future

population.”. – [Mr Teo Chee Hean].

Amendments proposed (5 February 2013) -

(1) in line 3, to leave out “population policy”; and

(2) at the end, to add “projections; and supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging moreSingaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the

citizen population from shrinking; and recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the

purpose of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to:

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

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

2/27/13

7/77

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

(d) carry out medium term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing

needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.” – [Mr Liang

Eng Hwa].

Resumption of Debate on Question (5 February 2013), “That the words proposed to be left out be left out.”.

Question again proposed.

12.29 pm

Ms Mary Liew (Nominated Member) : Mdm Speaker, the White Paper has reinforced the reality and

seriousness of our population’s demographic trend of a shrinking and ageing population as currently being

experienced in most of Asia.

From now till 2030, we will have more than 900,000 Baby Boomers turning 65 years of age. This is about a

quarter of the existing citizen population entering their silver years. To contribute towards reversing the current

trend of low birth rates, the recent enhanced Marriage and Parenthood Package, encourage young Singaporeans

to get married and have more than 1 child is a commendable initiative. I would like to raise several concerns and

make suggestions in four key areas to further contribute to the initiatives in the Population White Paper.

First, holistic approach, infant care and childcare. I thank the Government for accepting some of the NTUC’sproposal to build a pro-family and pro-creation Singapore. While the new M&P Package including the enhanced

Baby Bonus, encourages couples to have more children and helps alleviate child-raising costs, it is however a

one-off incentive and does not take into account that child raising is a lifelong journey.

In order to improve fertility rates, it is important that families have support throughout the years as the child

grows up. Parents need to feel confident that they can adequately provide for their children a quality life while

enjoying opportunities for personal development.

Strong measures must be in place to ensure that women do not lose out at work when they take time off to start

a family. We urge the Government to take bold steps to implement a holistic approach on Family Friendly

Workplace practices. I would like to ask if the Minister would consider legislating on the right for employees to

ask for flexible work arrangement similar to Australia and UK.

The additional subsidies for infant care and child care are definitely a step in the right direction. It reduces the

burden of infant care and childcare costs for working parents and is an incentive for full-time mothers to return towork. These enhanced subsidies are pegged to household incomes, and therefore vary depending on the family’s

incomes.

However, while these measures are welcomed, would the government consider taking a bigger step and moving

towards the Scandinavian model which has improved their Total Fertility Rates to 2.1? For the Scandinavians,

the affordability of infant care and childcare is just part of the answer. Equally important is that the network of

facilities where fees and standards are equal across the board. This removes the anxiety of fighting for a spot at

the best day-care centres and gives children the same preparation for school regardless of their socioeconomicstatus.

2/27/13

8/77

I urge our Government to continue to work towards strengthening the infrastructures of our infant care and childcare centres to provide quality services, so that parents are confident to raise their children without monetary

worries and over reliance on domestic helpers.

Instead of our current staggered system of enhanced subsidies based on household income, can we consider a

similar model where infant care and child care is very much close to being state-funded? After all, children are

our National Treasures and the leaders of tomorrow. What we spend on them today is an investment for our

future. This would be in line with the current practice where the fees in our Government Primary and SecondarySchools are nominal and a flat rate for all Singaporeans, there is no discrimination and income differentiation. This

simplified scheme further reduces the manpower required to administer the different tier of subsidies.

We can further look into a longer and more flexible system of parental care leave. In Sweden, couples enjoy 13

months of paid leave, plus another three months leave at a fixed rate. The 13 months can be split between

parents, so families can decide which parent would best perform the role at home. By law, employers have to

hold a mother’s job during her maternity leave, so the job will still be there after one year. This is one of the

contributing factors to the Swedish fertility rate of 1.9.

I hope that the Minister will continue to look into NTUC’s request of a longer maternity leave of six months paid

by the Government and if possible, up to another six months unpaid maternity leave.

Although Singaporean working mothers enjoy maternity leave, there remains a segment of the women

population, employed on short term contracts, who may not get their contracts renewed when their employers

become aware of their pregnancy.

While the Government Paid Maternity Benefit offers some income for mothers who are contract workers, if

family’s support is inadequate, it will be a challenge for the mother to go out to look for employment, when no

one is taking care of the newborn. In this instance, she would not be eligible to fully benefit from the infant care

subsidies. These mothers find themselves without income when they need it most. A flat-nominal infant care fee

would however be very beneficial in her circumstance.

Second, Singapore women and serving the nation. As the Singapore population continues to age, there will beconsiderable demands for facilities for the elderly, including healthcare, rehabilitative care, retirement homes, and

others. The Government is looking to build some 17 new and replacement nursing homes, 39 senior care centres

and 56 senior activity centres by 2016, with facilities to be added in tandem with future demand and growth.

Whilst work is being done to develop these national infrastructures to support our ageing population, is the same

effort being made towards building a manpower base for these facilities?

Healthcare is such an essential aspect in ensuring the well-being of our national population. Whilst our male

population in Singapore are obliged to serve their National Service, the women can also contribute to our nationby being trained in healthcare and eldercare as part of a mere mandatory minimum of three month’s commitment

similar to our men serving in National Service.

They will become better caregivers for their immediate families and be equipped when they start families of their

own. This will serve as an exposure as well as encouragement for women to consider healthcare as a career

option but, more importantly, the skills and knowledge in medical care, healthcare and eldercare will remain a

core life skill that will be embedded in our young women for life. This will contribute to the currently lackingmanpower base of healthcare workers and help reduce our reliance on foreign talents. Madam, I am often being

2/27/13

9/77

asked by male colleagues and Members lamenting to me why are we women not serving the National Service

whereas they have to. I got to gently remind them that their mothers served life-long National Service because of

them.

Third, housing and transport infrastructure. In our Singapore journey to 2030, preliminary projections indicate

that we may have some 2.5 million non-residents who are predominantly foreign workers, supplementing our

Singaporean core in the workforce.

To cope with our population growth, the Government has plans to add to our infrastructure with 700,000

additional homes, so that we can all live and co-exist in this high quality living environment. In this quest for

quality living, I hope that decent quality living infrastructure will also be developed for our foreign labour in the

form of better dormitories.

Although some of our foreign workforce may be from the third world countries seeking better work

opportunities, it does not mean that they only deserve third world standards of housing in Singapore. I therefore

urge the Government to consider as part of the infrastructure development plans to also place seriousconsideration into how we can provide a comfortable living environment for our foreign workforce. They deserve

decent work, decent wages and decent living environment, as with all workers all over the world.

With regard to transport, I am heartened that the Government has also announced plans to implement a $43

million National Cycling Plan to construct dedicated off-road cycling paths that segregate cyclists from on-road

vehicles and pedestrians, in HDB towns and estates to facilitate intra-town cycling, one of which would be

through capitalising on the extensive park connector networks.

It is a great proposal, as cycling is a mode of transport that has a reduced environmental impact and on a

recreational level, promotes healthier living through exercise. However, I hope the Government will look beyond

the recreational benefits of cycling, and recognise that cycling is an alternate mode of transport. Studies from

Copenhagen concluded that after cycle tracks were constructed along the main roads, there was an increase in

the use of bicycles and a decrease in the use of cars or other modes of transport for daily commute to work.

When I was in Copenhagen last October, I was amazed to see so many well dressed professional men and

women riding on a bike to and from work. Then I was told by the Danish Unionists that their Labour Ministercycled to work. I started to imagine our Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin doing the same. But I am

not quite there yet.

With our increased population projections in 2030, it would be worth to alleviate the crunch of cars on the road

and the masses using our rail networks, by encouraging some of our citizens to embrace a healthier and a more

economical way of transportation.

While the National Cycling Plan is looking into off-road cycling path, would the Government consider the

feasibility of implementing cycling infrastructures into the building of future roads, including bus lanes, or

designated routes for cyclists to use in their daily commutes?

Last, better pay, better jobs and better lives. In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I must confess that like many others,

I was concerned when I first read the headline of 6.9 million population in 2030. Looking at the current

infrastructure, social tension and the competition we faced, it did not give me the assurance that Singaporean will

be better off in 2030 with a 6.9 million population.

2/27/13

10/77

However, I appreciate our prudent Government for being honest, for taking the bold steps in sounding the alarm

and planning ahead before it is too late. On this note, I would like to join my brothers and sisters in the Labour

movement to call upon the Deputy Prime Minister to focus on the following important areas:

First, we must be mindful that the slowdown in economic growth could lead to higher unemployment and

stagnation of wages. Whilst we recognise that as our economy matures, our economic and manpower growth

will slow down, but we must not overdo it and lose sight of keeping unemployment low and fending off wage

stagnation. At the same time, we must pay special attention to vulnerable workers to ensure that they too canhave better jobs, better pay and lead better lives.

Second, assure Singaporeans that the infrastructure of 2020 and 2030 will be better than the infrastructure of

today. It is important to solve the problems of today decisively so as to build confidence and prevent the

problem of today from snowballing into a bigger problem tomorrow; in particular, the availability and affordability

of housing, reliability and adequacy of public transport, shorter waiting times and affordable healthcare.

Third, Singaporeans must always come first as we grow our population. As we see more non-residents inSingapore, we must also see more babies born here. From education to healthcare, jobs and wages, we must

ensure that the interests of Singaporeans come first. The standard of living and quality of life of Singaporeans

must only get better and not worse. Putting Singaporeans first would also mean protecting our Singaporeans

PMEs as well. I fully support the call by the hon. Member Patrick Tay for the Minister to look into setting up a

quota for foreign PMEs so that our Singaporeans will not be disadvantaged.

Fourth, a bigger population should not lead to higher inflation and a less sustainable environment. There will begreater demand for daily essentials. A bigger population will also put a greater strain on our environment with

higher energy consumption, air pollution, and others. Steps must be taken to ensure the security of supply and a

greener and cleaner environment.

Last but not least, the journey towards Singapore 2030 should be a journey of all round engagement between

the Government and Singaporeans. The five days’ debate in Parliament and the adoption of the White Paper

should not be a one-off exercise. There must be periodical reviews and continued engagement. This will

strengthen trust, co-ownership, confidence and involvement by Singaporeans in creating our Singapore 2020 and2030 together. On this note, Madam, I support the motion as moved by the hon. Member Liang Eng Hwa.

12.55 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Pasir Ris-Punggol) : Mdm Speaker, let me first speak in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): Singapore’s population policy should not only meet our development needs, but also promote

social harmony. We must maintain Singapore’s vibrancy and build a quality home that all Singaporeans share.

Recently, we have been discussing how large a population Singapore will have in the future. The reality is that

Singapore does not have enough people and has a low fertility rate and an aging population. By 2030, seniors

aged 65 and above will reach 900,000 and those who need care may reach 117,000. This is a serious challenge

we are facing.

To ensure a Singaporean core, we must first raise our citizens’ fertility rate. In this regard, we must have strongdetermination. We have talked about this enough during the last several days. Now I would like to focus on

2/27/13

11/77

childcare and eldercare.

Many families rely on maids to look after their children. It would be most helpful if the Government could reduce

or waive the Foreign Domestic Worker Levy. At the same time, employers should adopt more pro-family

measures. When a person’s family is harmonious, his productivity will also increase. This is so called “a

harmonious family can lead to the success of everything”.

Beside maids, many couples also hope their parents, that is, the grandparents, could help look after the children.If the elderly can help look after our next generation, our family and social cohesiveness would be strong. The

elderly can play with their grandchildren and the latter can receive more love from them. Youngsters will be able

to feel more warmth from the family. Grandparents are more experienced and caring; therefore couples will be

more comfortable with leaving their children with them. Hence, the Government can subsidise the grandparents

who help look after the grandchildren with childcare grant. This is a form of recognition of their contributions and

will be seen as pro-family.

The elderly have laid the foundation for today’s Singapore. Their contribution should not be forgotten. When

drinking, we should remember where the water is from. We must take good care of them so that they can enjoy

their senior years.

Looking after the elderly means they can age gracefully. Quite often, we hear people say that they are not afraid

of death but sickness instead. This shows how the elderly are worried about high medical expenses. I hope the

Government can relieve the elderly of their worries and consider waiving GST for all medical expenses

regardless they are subsidised by the Government or not, and relax the criteria for using ElderShield.

Besides physical health, we should also look after the elders’ mental health. Aging-in-place is a very good

proposal. There is a saying that nowhere is as good as one’s home. If the elderly could age in place and continue

to live in a familiar environment, they will have better mental health. We need to expand the scope of Aging-in-

place and build more pro-senior facilities in the community.

By 2030, seniors aged 65 and above will reach 900,000. More caregivers will be needed to look after them.

Hence, to import a certain numbers of foreign caregivers is necessary.

In conclusion, to keep Singapore vibrant and to stay true to the Singapore spirit, we must have enough

Singaporeans. I hope the enhanced Marriage and Parenthood package can encourage Singaporeans to have

more children so that we can have the joy of three generations living together. At the same time, we can build a

more gracious society.

(In English): The White Paper aims to build a vibrant population with a strong Singaporean core. Its main goal isto provide Singaporeans with better lives, higher quality homes and wider career choices to pursue their dreams.

It is pro-Singaporean and pro-Singapore.

A Punggol resident, Tan Siang Meng, recently shared his sentiments with me. Singaporeans are our national

resources. We should do all we can to encourage the birth rate, rather than vary the pace of immigration.

I want to discuss how we can focus on the organic growth of our Singaporeans, what more we can do to

support Singaporeans, to strengthen the Singaporean core. The Government is here for Singaporeans, along withSingaporeans and always on their side.

2/27/13

12/77

We need to reassure them that housing, jobs, cost of living are taken care of, as we experience demographic

challenges in 2030. We not only have to assure Singaporeans that the plans in the White Paper benefit

Singaporeans, we must ensure that Singaporeans can feel the benefits and get the benefits of Singapore’s

progress in 2030, without doubt.

Housing, cost of living, job competitiveness and Singapore’s low birth rate are issues close to my heart. During

my maiden speech in this Parliament last year, I offered some suggestions on improving Singapore’s low birth

rate, in terms of HDB flat rebates and free infant care.

Therefore, I welcome the recent Government initiatives that address the issues I had highlighted.

We are on the right track in our population policies. Allow me to make three observations and suggestions tofurther strengthen our population policies.

Firstly, the Government should continue to create as many opportunities for every Singaporean to be successful

in life. In 2030, I hope all Singaporeans will live out their own “Singapore dream”, have great and good careeroptions and excel in different pathways they wanted. To do so, I urge the Government to invest heavily in

education. We must preserve our social mobility and allow every child to realise their potential to the fullest.

Our investments in education should address our demographic challenges. Our ageing population will requiremore healthcare services. From NPTD’s Paper on Foreign Manpower Demand, the projected growth of foreign

healthcare professionals and support care workforce is about 9,000 and 6,000 respectively. I believe that moreshould be done to encourage locals to join these sectors instead. I urge the three medical schools here can do

more to attract and nurture medical professionals amongst Singaporeans.

Most parents applaud the recent announcements on the enhanced child and infant care subsidies. Sharon,

another Punggol resident I met, suggests that more cost subsidies should be given to early childhood teachers toupgrade themselves. This will increase the level of professionalism in this sector.

Besides affordability of childcare courses, parents continue to be concerned by the accessibility and quality of

early childhood development programmes. Could the Implementation Committee on Enhancing Pre-schoolEducation give us an update?

The rising cost of living continues to be one of the chief concerns among Singaporeans particularly the lowerincome group who have seen their real income stagnate. With rising income inequality a global phenomenon, wemust help our low-income Singaporeans upgrade, take on good jobs and earn better wages. We need to attract

better foreign investments so as to secure good quality jobs, better-paid jobs for our Singaporeans. I amheartened by the Government’s drive to create high value jobs, with two-thirds of Singaporeans holding PMET

jobs by 2030.

The rental costs for commercial and industrial properties also affect the rising costs of living among Singaporeans.

I would urge the HDB and JTC to resume bigger and more active roles in controlling the rental for theseproperties. A good example is the role of the NEA and its active co-management of new hawker centres withnon-profit organisations.

Thirdly, we must continue to build good affordable homes and implement pro-family housing policies. On goodaffordable homes, I welcome MND's move to delink the prices of new flats from the prices of resale flats. This

2/27/13

13/77

will address many young couples' anxieties. May I also suggest that MND continues to price future new flats atnot more than five times of the eligible applicants' annual income of this flat type.

We also can do more for three generations of families staying together. The new Multi-generation PriorityScheme allows parents and their married child to submit a joint application to purchase a studio apartment or 2-room flat together with another flat in the same project. I suggest that MND looks at making bigger sized flats

(4-room and 5-room) a priority to larger families to encourage them to live together.

I am also encouraged by MND’s land use plan to build more regional centres, so that people can work and have

leisure near their home. As a Pasir Ris Punggol Member of Parliament, I am pleased to note that Punggol will bedeveloped further. The existing Punggol Town Centre will be expanded into Punggol Downtown with a TownSquare and a Creative Cluster. I wish to ask about the Government’s plans for the type of creative cluster

businesses it intends to attract and the estimated timeline for the redevelopment.

I also wish to appeal to HDB to grant a few days’ grace period without penalty for each month of instalment

payment to flat owners. This will help to ease the financial strain and burden for those families whose incomebarely made the household expenditure.

On pro-family housing policies, I think we can go a step further than the newly introduced Parenthood PriorityScheme. We can also explore a special housing grant for HDB couples for each child they have subject to aminimum of two children. Young families also need the support of their immediate families, such as their parents

and in-laws. We can do more for them.

When Punggol is fully developed, the housing units in Punggol will be tripled to 96,000 units. As Punggol

becomes one of the largest HDB towns under the Punggol Downtown, I would like to request that LTA expeditethe building of the Cross Island Line. This will facilitate better connectivity for the larger number of residents from

Punggol to towns in the central and western region. I hope LTA can look into opening the line in stages within thenext decade, with Changi, Pasir Ris and Punggol as the first stops.

While the population policy is of national concern, we must continue to adopt policies that are both pro-

Singaporean and pro-Singapore. The organic growth of our Singapore core must be the utmost priority.

Recently, I shared my experiences as a father with the parents at my Punggol’s Edusave presentation ceremony.

To me, children fulfil the life of a couple. After a full day’s work, I feel energised just by the sight of my childrenat home. They remind me of my purpose in life and what I am striving for.

The success of our population policies depends most importantly on the personal choices and efforts of our

fellow Singaporeans. We can agree on some issues and will disagree on other issues. However, there are manyparts to Singapore’s future in 2030 which we must work and create together as a family, as a community and as

a nation. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the motion with the proposed amendment, and the assurance bythe Government that it will do its utmost to create a better and quality life for Singaporeans, and to also help

Singaporeans to increase productivity to bring a better life for our children and our next generation.

Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the Members here and also my residents inPasir Ris-Punggol and all Singaporeans a Happy Lunar New Year.

1.11 pm

2/27/13

14/77

Ms Tin Pei Ling (Marine Parade) : Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak in this debate.

When the White Paper was released, I had strong reservations. I wondered how Singapore can accommodate6.9 million, when every day we are faced with crowds in places such as the housing estates, wet markets,shopping malls, MRT trains, buses and carparks? How can I feel that this is still my country if Singaporeans are

at the brink of becoming the minority with 55% of population being citizens in Singapore in 2030?

Singaporeans shared these reservations. The White Paper evoked a strong reaction from many Singaporeans.

The media headlines were stark and set the tone for the vigorous debate that was to come. The Internet wasabuzz with concerns and critical comments. In essence, the pushback from Singaporeans was mighty strong.

Many spoke to me, emailed me and left comments on my Facebook page. Let me share some of the comments Ihave received:

First: “What is the purpose of a 6.9 million population? How fast can our infrastructure develop to meet with this

increase in population? Are current citizens expected to pay more in terms of GST, transport fares, etc, in thatcase to let ourselves have less space in this country?”

Next one: “It's never too late to stop and think – are we for "a healthy economy" or for "a healthy people"? Mostimportant, what is the healthy balance we ought to achieve between national economic progress and meaningful

personal growth for each citizen?”

These comments are sensible, and I believe many Singaporeans share these sentiments as well.

When the Ministers took turns to explain the intent, that is, our first priority is to strengthen the Singaporean core;

that 6.9 million is NOT a target but a planning parameter; and that the infrastructure will be improved and builtahead of time, I felt more reassured. But still, I have some reservations and I will set them out here.

First on infrastructure: With current pain points still stubbornly persisting, it is frankly difficult for anyone toimagine the vision articulated in the White Paper or the Land Use Plan. How much more can we build beforecollapsing our island nation?

I appreciate that MND and MOT have released their respective master plans to improve services, prior to therelease of the White Paper. However, I believe we should have first focused on resolving the current pain points

quickly before considering the White Paper proposals. Can MND and MOT not continue to work at improvingservices until the current problems are resolved? When the problems are resolved, I believe that is also whenSingaporeans can better imagine and have the confidence that we can accommodate the rise in population

growth.

Hence, I am glad that the hon. Mr Liang Eng Hwa has proposed an amendment which singled out and gave

clarity to the need to prioritise efforts in resolving the current strains on our infrastructure.

The Government also needs to plan ahead and invest in infrastructure beyond just housing and transport. This

should include the adequacy supply of water, sustainability of energy use and effective waste management! Evenat our present population size, are these sufficient and sustainable over the long term?

Take waste management as an example. We have limited land. The land will grow but to house people and not

waste. People, however, will continue to incur and produce waste on a daily basis. So, how are we going tomanage that and how effective will the waste-to-energy incineration be in reducing the volume of waste produced

2/27/13

15/77

in future by an expected larger population?

The next concern I have is about maintaining a Singaporean core. A strong Singaporean core is essential to

having a stable and healthy Singapore. This is also one of the stated aims in the White Paper. But are we doingenough to maintain and in fact strengthen the Singaporean core? There are a few points that I would like tomake.

First, it is critical to raise our demoralising TFR. Encouraging a significant increase in TFR within a short span oftime will be challenging, but we need to continue to push hard at it. Yes, low TFR is a phenomenon observed in

many developed countries around the world, but there are also matured economies which have seen a rise inTFR because of good efforts put in by their governments.

Consider Australia. In 2007, Australia had a TFR of 1.9, which rose to about 1.93 in 2008 and has since stayed

at that level. It is a positive example of a developed economy with a higher than average fertility rate. Some ofAustralia’s birth rates pick-up came from what it has called “recuperation”. This means that a significant number

of women who had at an earlier stage (for example, at the age 25 years old) did not wish to give birth, anddecided to do so only several years later.

The report suggests that it is the accessibility of part-time jobs, reduced financial risks associated withchildbearing and lowered costs associated with exiting and re-entering the labour market that have enabled this“recuperation”.

Australia’s experience gives hope that Singapore too can in time increase our TFR. But we have to seriouslyaddress and overcome the barriers that deter Singaporean couples from starting families.

Top of the list of factors that was explored is the affordability of supporting a child. This is based on studies bothin Australia and locally. For example, a year 2000 Australian study pointed out that the financial andpsychosocial costs of having children can be difficult to decipher, and that negative “unknowns” themselves

encourage individuals to err on the side of caution and thus discourage them from having children. Locally, a2012 study report by NTU Assistant Professor Shirley Hsiao also found that the top concern affecting

childbearing decisions was the high and rising cost of living in Singapore, with 96 out of 165 respondentsexpressing this concern in the study.

These studies make clear that the costs of raising a child is a major consideration and the Government needs todo more to help minimise the uncertainties surrounding the raising of a child. In addition, an interestingobservation made in the local study was that incentives such as the Baby Bonus were no longer seen as an

incentive, but as a form of compensation or reimbursement. Therefore, it is clear that while the schemes that havebeen offered by the Government have good intention, but it is not enough.

Therefore, the Government must continue to monitor the effectiveness of its parenthood schemes and review thepackage of measures from time to time, to address the concerns of Singaporean parents, and assure them that

the Government will help with the cost of raising their children.

The slew of schemes announced in the recent Marriage and Parenthood package was comprehensive, andcertainly a step in the right direction. However, it does not go far enough to address lingering concerns, such as

the availability of childcare and the cost of hiring a foreign domestic helper. We must continue to do more in thisarea.

2/27/13

16/77

I would also like to boldly propose the following measures for Government’s consideration:

First, I think this is something that we have all been talking about – childcare. To ramp up, incubate and facilitatethe set up of more childcare centres closer to the heartland so that parents need not worry about accessibilityand availability.

Second, transport. Make public transport family friendly in addition to simply creating capacity. For instance, byproviding family friendly carriages on MRT trains for families travelling together with young children or elderly

parents. There are only so many cars that the roads can handle and therefore, at some point, Singaporeans willhave to rely on public transport. And we can help by making public transport more family friendly.

Third, women workers. Introduce more measures to protect working mothers and mothers-to-be from

discrimination at work. The MOM reported that an average of 70% of unfair dismissals - dismissal casesinvolving women worker that MOM has received involves pregnant women. Hence, we must work to ensure a

fair working environment in Singapore so that women who wish to start families can do so, without fear of losingtheir career. It does not have to be a situation whereby you “gain one baby, and lose one career”. It should not

be a zero sum game.

Next, we can strengthen our Singaporean core by drawing from a pool of non-Singaporeans who are stronglyaffiliated with Singaporeans. I refer to the foreign spouses of Singapore Citizens. I had raised this and argued for

them in the debate on the Immigration (Amendment) Act in August last year.

We should not neglect the contributions of a foreign spouse, especially a woman, married to a Singaporean and

who has raised Singaporean children. She is not going anywhere and neither will her Singaporean spouse andchildren going to forsake her. We need to understand that marriage is a lifelong commitment. It concerns

people’s lives. These are Singaporeans who have decided to build a future with foreign partners. We should notmake it any more difficult for such couples who have Singaporean children especially. In helping these foreignspouses, we are not just helping the individuals themselves, but really what we are doing is to strengthen

Singaporean families, and therefore, nourishing our Singaporean core.

When we talk about the Singaporean core, it is also about preserving our Singaporean identity. Being a

Singaporean, a citizen should be beyond just holding a pink IC. There has to be a sense of togetherness andshared destiny. It is natural that Singaporeans worry if some of these new immigrants are opportunistic and will

exploit us for their own gains. It is natural that Singaporeans want to know: Will they stay and fight with us if awar breaks out tomorrow? Can they speak our language? And will they sing our National Anthem with the samefeeling that we have?

Clearly, we cannot have zero immigration. However, we need to do more and try harder in our efforts tointegrate new immigrants faster and better. And to prevent Singaporeans from becoming a minority in our own

country, I hope the Government will consider setting a baseline percentage of Singaporeans that cannot bebreached. That will ensure that foreigners will never be admitted into Singapore beyond an acceptable level andthat Singaporeans can be better safeguarded.

Finally, I would like to touch on Buy-in from Young Singaporeans. We could do more to communicate theWhite Paper proposals better. The Population White Paper is one of the most important issues considered in this

Parliament. This debate concerns what is the soul of Singapore, and what it means to be a Singaporean and tobuild a Singaporean core. The White Paper that we debate this week will set the path for the next two decades,

2/27/13

17/77

and for someone of my generation or younger, there is a lot at stake.

I believe that the Government has good intentions. This is evidently an unpopular task; some may question if thisis fool’s courage; some have even described it as “political suicide” for the ruling party. I would like to think that

any political party in a democracy will not shoot itself in the foot; the Government would not have introduced thisWhite Paper unless it believes that this is the best proposal, or at least the least bad for Singaporeans and for the

future. However, the Government has to do much more to convince Singaporeans that the White Paperproposals are necessary and correct.

Mdm Speaker, I am turning 30 years old this year. In all my years, Singapore has enjoyed high GDP growth ofabout 5% to 8% every year, except during the short periods when Singapore went into recession. Those of mygeneration Y would find it difficult to appreciate the perils of prolonged low growth or no growth, especially not

when many of us are preoccupied with persistent pressures on a daily basis.

Many of us jostle for space on the roads, in our buses and on MRT trains; many feel keenly and intimately the

competition from foreigners; many are struggling to even catch a breather in the career rat-race. The goals weused to have are increasingly unattainable as the goal posts seem to have been shifted again and again.

Moreover, to young people, beyond economic growth and good jobs, we have other equally, if not more,important but perhaps less tangible goals, for instance, happiness, meaningful life, fair opportunities and the spaceto lead the life we want to have.

Each generation has its own needs, demands and character, and we need to recognise that. My generation is onewhich will not simply accept that the Government knows best. We need to be shown the facts and figures, and

be convinced that the course of action is indeed the right one.

For instance, in the case of the White Paper, what were the different scenarios that were considered? How arethe measures implemented in other countries with similar challenges not applicable or not relevant in our context?

Are there specific data or cases that can be explained so that we would know the tradeoffs and therefore, makean informed decision? For example, how will life change if we are having a GDP growth of 3% or even at zero

per cent? How much higher will taxes have to be if we do not grow the population size?

From now to 2030, young Singaporeans will be going through the prime of our lives, building our careers and

raising our own families. Our generation will be profoundly affected by the White Paper proposals. Therefore, ifthe Government firmly believes in what it has set out in the White Paper, it will have to explain more and illustratemore, to persuade a generation brought up to think critically, speak out without fear, fight for our rights, and do

what we believe is the right thing. Mdm Speaker, just a few words in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): Population is an important issue that we must pay attention to. This decision will bring about

long-term implications. By 2030, I will be 47 years old and I should still be working. If I am lucky, I willprobably have children and will be bringing them up. Therefore, today’s decision will affect my generation as well

as the future of our children. For now, many of my peers are facing mounting pressure as there seems to beendless rounds of obstacles. There is no right or wrong about the definition of a bright future. And Singaporeansshould decide for ourselves and be responsible for it.

Several days ago on 5 February, a 17-year-old student Zhang Jiayu wrote in to Lianhe Zaobao to express herviews. The article titled “What the post-90ers think of the White Paper” was not only well written but expressed

the voices of many young Singaporeans. I hereby quote from her, “If my future children are to live in such a

2/27/13

18/77

crowded environment, and face endless competition while living under financial strains, I’d rather not have

children than to let them suffer. I believe many who are born in the 80s and 90s think the same way.”

Of course, economy, work and money are important, but happiness, having a meaningful life and personal spaceare equally important.

I understand that the responsibility of this Government is onerous. If we make a wrong move, we may lose thewhole game. This is perhaps why the Government would rather be blamed by the people now for making an

unpopular decision than risk being blamed by the people as the one responsible for bringing about the crisis lateron.

However, in life, there are also times when those on the losing end are happy while those on the winning end are

sad. Therefore, I urge the Government to listen to the voices of young Singaporeans. If the Government believesthat the White Paper is the correct solution, then I hope the Government will try its best to convince

Singaporeans. Our future should lie in our hands. I hereby make a bold statement to the Government thatsometimes if the Government can take a step backwards, we will all see the fuller picture and have that breathing

space.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, the end of the White Paper debate cannot be the last word on the matter. It shouldbe an opportunity to continue an engagement process to explain, clarify, argue, adjust and then solicit buy-in and

build consensus amongst the people.

This White Paper is for Singaporeans and so it is only right that Singaporeans are brought on-board to support

the strategies in the paper. Precisely because this concerns all of us, that is why, Singaporeans’ support is socritical.

There is no need to rush an 18-year destiny in just one week. Therefore, Mdm Speaker, as hon. Member Mr

Liang Eng Hwa has proposed and set out the amendment to the motion and therefore, provided clarity to theintent of the motion, I support the amended motion standing in the name of the hon. Member Mr Liang Eng Hwa.

Otherwise, I would boldly ask that the paper be deferred so that there is more time for collective discussion,more detailed explanation and exploration of more options.

1.29 pm

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene (Nominated Member) : Mdm Speaker, Point of Order. Can I confirmthat we have a quorum in this Chamber?

Thereaupon, a count was made.

Mdm Speaker : We need 25 Members for the quorum. We have 23 Members in the Chamber. Ring the

division bells.

Members summoned into the Chamber as if for a division.

Mdm Speaker : There are now 26 Members in the Chamber. A quorum is now present. I now call on Ms

Janice Koh to take the floor.

1.32 pm

2/27/13

19/77

Ms Janice Koh (Nominated Member) : Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Inresponse to the White Paper, I would like to raise two broad areas of concern.

My first concern touches on how serious we are about raising our citizen Total Fertility Rate (TFR) and making

sure we will have a strong and not diminishing Singaporean core in the long term.

The White Paper acknowledges that many East Asian societies and Western European countries have fertility

rates below replacement levels, but it fails to present or consider examples of other countries that have beensuccessful in gradually reversing their declining TFR. These include Norway, Sweden, France, Iceland, Ireland

and the UK.

Some of these more successful countries have relied, to some extent, on immigrant births to reverse decliningTFR, but research also shows that as these nations become more developed, better systems are put in place to

help families take care of children, such as extended paternity care and more equitable working environments.

The reversal of declining TFR, most notably in the Nordic countries, is due largely to the adoption of women-

friendly and family-friendly social policies and labour market practices. Women enjoy relatively unhinderedaccess to the labour market, and are able to easily withdraw from and return to it after taking parental leave. InSingapore, however, the women’s workforce participation rates decline and do not recover from age 30

onwards. This indicates that many who leave the workforce do not return.

In Norway, on the other hand, women benefit from extended paid maternity leave of 46 weeks and their jobs

are protected by law. Both partners, mother and father, are actively involved in child-rearing, with men beingoffered a minimum of 10 weeks paid paternity leave. There is access to high quality, heavily subsidised child care

and a guaranteed place for every child. Companies are obligated to offer benefits to pregnant women and newmothers. For instance, expectant mothers get free medical check-ups and breastfeeding moms are allowed toleave early from work.

In the Singapore context, these would be considered very bold measures. However, like several MPs in thisHouse have stated, we need to implement bold measures if we expect a paradigm change. If this projection of

6.9 million people by 2030 is really “a worst-case scenario” to help Government plan for our long-terminfrastructural needs, then, by the same argument, should we not explore all means and ways to raise the TFR of

our resident population under worst-case scenario circumstances?

Studies have shown that social policies that help women to reconcile work and family life have a positive effecton fertility. If we are serious about raising TFR, we need to support women who wish to continue working and

making a living after childbirth, and give them the assurance that having more children will not have a negativeimpact on their and their children’s quality of life. We should do more to make gender equality a core value in all

our policies in order to support shared parenthood. We need legislation to eliminate workplace discriminationagainst mothers and pregnant women, and provide greater job security for them. Like Ms Mary Liew, I would

like to ask that Government also consider legislating companies to provide options for flexi-work arrangementsfor women after childbirth as well as advocate and incentivise them to support the needs of new mothers in theworkplace. And, finally, we must ensure that all our children, no matter their economic background, have good

and easy access to high quality and affordable pre-school education and childcare.

My second and more pressing concern relates to Singaporeans’ capacity to embrace a much bigger foreign

population into our midst.

2/27/13

20/77

Singapore has a high proportion of PRs and foreigners who live and work alongside our citizens every day. The

current ratio is about 38% of the total population. And by 2020, this will climb to about 40%. And by 2030, thenumber projected will be close to 45%. That is almost half! Is it any surprise then that there is so much anxietyand insecurity amongst Singaporeans over who will constitute this Singapore core in 2030?

Reading MND’s Land Use Plan paper and after listening to Minister Khaw’s reassurances, one could argue thatit is reasonable to trust the planners on the carrying capacity of our island. What is less clear, however, are our

psychological, social and cultural capacities to absorb, accept, if not embrace, this continued flow of newcomersinto our midst, and to live well and harmoniously together with them.

First, our psychological deficit. Madam, I am not sure if Singaporeans are psychologically ready to accept a lot

more immigrants. I believe we are not a xenophobic bunch. We come from immigrant forefathers and we havelived and grown together as a multi-cultural society over many decades. However, in the past year alone, there

has been an outpour of anger both online and in the mainstream press over various incidents involving foreigners.

It is out of our character, but I believe some of this angst stem from our worry over limited national resources.

For instance, the prospect of more and more affluent foreigners snapping up private homes in the propertymarket fuels fears that Singaporeans will soon be priced out of their dream homes.

Sure, the 6.9 million figure is only a planning parameter, but psychologically, it is still a hard pill to swallow

because Government has yet to convince citizens on how it intends to effectively deal with the seriousinfrastructural gaps and address the more fundamental questions related to the rising costs of housing and

healthcare and the challenges of retirement faced by Singaporeans today. This has led to a growing sense ofinsecurity about our future, a break in trust between Government and the people, and a lack of confidence that

what we work for counts for something. I would therefore like to echo Mr Inderjit Singh’s call for Governmentto focus first on solving the problems created by past policies of rapid economic and population growth, and onimproving the lives of Singaporeans.

Singaporeans need to feel confident and secure that, as citizens, we have equal opportunities to achieve ouraspirations regardless of race, language or religion.

We can start by looking at increasing social spending as a percentage of GDP to benefit and help a largerproportion of Singaporeans, and not just those at the very bottom-rung. Social spending in Singapore hasdecreased significantly from about 25% of GDP in the 80s to only about 16% of GDP by 2011, even less than in

Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. In this respect, I agree with Mr Seah Kian Peng that Government shouldreview its bias against welfarism.

We need to also assure citizens that they are not discriminated against in their own country. We can do this byensuring that Singaporeans are not discriminated in favour of foreigners when it comes to employment, especially

with the rise of more Singaporeans in PMET jobs. We can also make it easier for overseas-born Singaporeansto get their citizenship when they turn 21. I know of Singapore children, born overseas to Singaporean parents,who face an endless line of bureaucratic hoops and hurdles just to prove their right to citizenship. In the

meantime, they are upset that there are foreigners who are wooed and courted, and then fast-tracked through thesystem to getting their citizenship.

We should eliminate discrimination against our own citizens in our social policies. Childcare benefits, for instance,should be extended equally to all parents, male or female, unwed or married, with biological or adopted children.

2/27/13

21/77

A Singaporean child, no matter the family situation or circumstances of their birth, should be taken care of andgiven the best possible start in life. In fact, even more so if the parent is single and struggling to raise the child on

his or her own.

In our minds, there should be no first and second-class citizens amongst Singaporeans. If, as citizens, we do notfeel secure that Singapore is our best home, if we are not confident that we can raise a family, grow old and

retire comfortably here, then we would not have it in our hearts and our minds to be open and accepting of ourforeign friends.

Second, our social deficit. Madam, in a recent letter to TODAY, someone warned that Singapore was in dangerof developing into three broad enclaves: one, foreign workers living in dormitories; two, Singaporeanheartlanders; and three, wealthy foreigners living in the central region. This does not sound like the Singapore we

love and remember, where friends and neighbours of various ethnic, cultural and economic backgrounds, wouldmix and mingle despite our language differences. This sounds more like a Singapore that is at risk of racial and

class divisions. The rapid PR and foreign population growth in the last few years has caused some of thesefractures and reduced our empathy for difference.

I like what Mr Arthur Fong said in his speech – we need to grow a “strong heart”, or better yet, a “big heart”. Ifwe do not start to build the social capacity to accept difference and diversity in our society now, we will lack theability to embrace people who are different from us in the future.

We will remain in social deficit if we tolerate or close a blind eye to the exploitation of low-wage foreignworkers, which downgrade the industries that rely on their labour. Singaporeans then do not want to take up

certain jobs because they are seen as lower status jobs done only by foreigners. This creates a furtherdependency on foreign workers. The recent decision to grant our Foreign Domestic Workers a mandatory dayoff was a step in the right direction, but more can be done to protect the other labour rights of these workers.

Policies and practices that place a lower value on the lives and well-being of certain human beings also lead toSingaporeans to devalue the lives of other Singaporeans.

We will remain in social deficit if biased preference is given to certain immigrants from certain countries orsectors. We need a fair and transparent system of immigration so that a diversified pool of immigrants can

become PRs, and eventually citizens, contributing to all sectors of society. In this way, Singapore is not just seenas a stepping-stone to other shores.

Some resentment against foreigners is a result of bringing in large numbers of immigrants who may share similar

ethnic backgrounds as us, but do not share similar cultural backgrounds, norms and values. We should enablethe development of Singapore as a multi-cultural society where people are not simply pigeonholed into one of the

four ethnic categories, but included as part of a diverse, cosmopolitan society. In this regard, perhaps it is timelyto review our ethnic quota policies and how we implement them.

We can also do more to educate our young at school by exposing our children, from an early age, to world

cultures and world histories, so that they start to develop a healthy respect, empathy and understanding of thosefrom foreign lands and cultures.

Finally, our cultural deficit. Madam, the White Paper talks about providing a high quality of life, and celebratingand safeguarding our heritage, but adds this qualifier: "wherever it is practical to do so". It wants Singapore to be

a "liveable, lively and well-loved" city, but does not earmark any new spaces for heritage, culture and the arts. In

2/27/13

22/77

fact, in MND's entire 68-page paper on Land Use, "the arts" is only mentioned in one brief paragraph, and not

much is said about preserving spaces for historical, cultural or sentimental value to Singaporeans. It is a glaringomission, and I refer to this lack of consideration as our “cultural deficit”.

Culture, of which the Arts are its deepest form of expression, reflects who we are, how we see the world and

how the world sees us. The Arts also entertain us, educate us, revive us, and provide the much needed leisureoutlet to unwind and relax. Our cultural wealth and heritage are built on history, tradition and memories. It roots

us, and gives us the tenacity to face change. It provides us with the necessary cultural depth to strengthen ourSingapore identity. On this aspect, I have two points.

First, a sense of shared history and a strong sense of belonging amongst Singaporeans make it easier for new

citizens to actively connect with their new home. How do we develop empathy and mutual understanding of eachother’s worldviews and differences if we do not continue to develop cultural spaces like museums and art venues

where stories, traditions and memories can be shared? Several MPs have questioned the effectiveness of someof our integration initiatives. Mr Seng Han Tong felt that the citizenship ceremonies, grassroots events and audio-

visual presentations may not have been as impactful as they should be. Integration efforts should not be a one-way street. Singaporeans, too, need to build these cultural capacities. A vibrant arts scene can provide far moreenriching ways of encountering and bridging differences, and celebrating diversity.

Secondly, public spaces to which Singaporeans have made long-lasting attachments help us develop a keensense of home. It is an emotional attachment. There is no “practical” reason to safeguard it except to safeguard

the hearts of our citizens and their sentimental connection to this island. Valuable historical resources are at adanger of being lost if a concerted effort is not made to assess them in detail, prior to any land use decisions.

These decisions cannot be made as and when an infrastructural need arises.

Madam, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I would like to recall MND’s response to the Bukit Brown issue atlast year’s Committee of Supply debate. The Minister of State recognised that hard choices on how our land is

used need to be made. He recalled the late Mr Lim Kim San’s words, “Do you want me to look after our deadgrandparents or do you want me to look after your grandchildren?” It would be hugely ironic if, in order to make

way for more people in 2030, most of whom will be new immigrants with no ancestral links to this land, we hadto give up our own cultural and historical treasures and legacies. Worse still, if the 6.9 million figure is truly a

stretched projection in a “worst case scenario”, then we need to ask ourselves, are we willing to permanentlysacrifice, say, parts of Bukit Brown, for instance, to build infrastructure based on a figure we may or may notachieve?

It is one thing to build a liveable city. The harder question is: how do we build a loveable one?

Mdm Speaker, to conclude, I would like to remind the House of the wisdom and foresight of S Rajaratnam in

1967. He had written an article for the Petir newsletter entitled, “Preparing for the Seventies”. At that time, wewere a society of transient immigrants, where many thought of Singapore, and I quote, “not as ‘our island’ but asa treasure island in which one stayed so long as there was treasure available”. He goes on to say, “To instill in

them a deep concern for not just their personal future, but for the future of Singapore… This is partly apsychological problem.”

Rajaratnam recognised that issues of national identity and integration have to be resolved before we can resolvethe other important problems of economics, housing and education. Why? Because whether citizens or

foreigners, we are all human. We are not productive units or economic digits. Because immigration and

2/27/13

23/77

integration present serious social challenges, not just engineering ones.

Just as we need to plan our physical infrastructure to accommodate a larger population, so will we need todevelop our psychological, social and cultural capacities to accommodate the greater diversity and difference in

our society. And these capacities, too, need to be built ahead of demand.

Madam, on the basis that more consultation and debate is needed on alternative growth models and targets

which have an impact on our infrastructure planning, and given that we have yet to strengthen our psychological,social and cultural capacities to accept a higher immigrant population, I find it hard to endorse this White Paper.

Madam, I oppose the motion.

1.50 pm

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol) : What in the world is this Population White Paper about? Is it about

how many people we should have in Singapore by 2030? Is it just about the economy? Or is it about the well

being of Singaporeans in 2030? Upon closer examination, I realised that some one-third of the Paper deals withissues of jobs, family, environment, living environment which are the basic quality of life issues – the same issuesthat concerns us all. Hence, to be fixated on the 6.9 million figure is simply missing the wood for the tree.

But then, why such strong response from the residents? Politics aside, there is a real concern if our tiny island of500 square metres of developable land can actually accommodate 6.9 million people comfortably. Already there

is congestion on the road, overcrowded public transport and hawker centres, rising housing prices and cost ofliving. These are clear and present challenges that residents are frustrated with today, so adding more people justdoes not feel right. Ironically, as the Government reiterated many times, it is precisely the responsibility to planahead of demand, and avoid the present day problems, that a planning figure of 6.9 million for 2030 wasproposed.

Hence, I rise in support of the White Paper and Mr Liang Eng Hwa’s amendment to the Paper – first we mustplace priority to resolving the current day and current strains on physical and social infrastructure. Do it now andif we over-project the number for 2030 by some margin, it is still much better than the overcrowded situationnow. Let us have some buffer as all these projects have long gestation period – a situation we are struggling with

today. However, this Paper cannot be cast in stone. We should pay careful attention to how things develop andreview our progress after five years and adjust again if need be.

This Paper is not just about population, it is about Singaporeans. What do I mean? If we frame our discussionaround the strengthening of the well-being of Singaporean core, and we put people in the centre of this WhitePaper and debate, then it will be a plan to improve the lives of Singaporeans.

I wish to explain this by citing the suggestion raised in this House that we tap on the latent workforce inSingapore in order to maintain a zero foreign labour workforce growth. I will also talk about what then mustdefine the Singapore core and the Singapore Community and I will then share my own wish for how we plan theeconomy and our physical landscape to serve people and not the other way round.

On tapping the latent workforce, I have been speaking in this House about putting in more measures to

encourage tapping of workforce since 2005. According to the Report on Labour Force in Singapore 2011, itstates that the resident labour workforce participation rate of people over 15 years old is 66.1% versus 64.4% in2001.For older residents of age 55 to 64, the labour participation rate has, in fact, jumped from 45.6% in 2001

2/27/13

24/77

to 63.4% in 2011 and the women workforce participation rate between age 25 and 54 also increasesubstantially from 65.4% in 2002 to 75.7% in 2011. This is very encouraging and I am sure that the Governmenthas put in some measures to encourage it. But I believe that we can go higher and we have to do more.

To do so, suitable incentive frameworks, part-timers/freelancers guilds and a supportive community are pre-requisites. And if Singapore workplace is truly inclusive and if the social enterprise sector can develop further,then more needy and disadvantaged people will also be able to contribute to the economy, find goodemployment, achieve good livelihoods and achieve a sense of self worth and dignity. But for now let me put on

focus on the question of seniors and working age women.

Seniors are better educated and in better health. They are ready to reap the longevity dividend if the workenvironment allows. Women are as educated as men today, and they too, want fulfilment of their potentials andfinancial independence. Entering the workplace becomes a means to these desires.

If you we put people at the centre of this discussion, we will also know that to truly meet the intrinsic and

extrinsic needs of the individual Singaporean woman, the senior and the family, we must ensure that there isadequate provision of childcare and eldercare facilities - childcare so that working mothers and seniors areassured that the children, their grandchildren will be in good professional care, and eldercare because that willrelease more working age women from taking care of their old and frail seniors at home. The demand for foreigndomestic workers may also rise if families prefer not to use institutional care but use home-based care instead.

So, you see, actually we have a wicked problem. If we simply talk about the numbers, a rise on one side fromtapping on the latent Singaporean workforce will mean the need for workers in building and running childcareand eldercare facilities. So, my point is this - the role of foreign workforce is closely intertwined with allowingSingaporeans to realise their full potential and enhance quality of life – at least until such time that innovations androbots can take over.

Let me draw one more link – if we are all too successful at tapping the latent workforce, but do not address thedemand for care, the flexi-work arrangements, then we may not see an increase in our fertility rates. Our womenwill be stretched every which way – they are not machines, and they do not live according to mathematicalformula or financial spreadsheets! So, let us not make the situation worse on one side when we think we are

solving the problems on the other side. It means we need a realistic and sensible labour force growth strategy.

Let me move on to the Singapore core and its values which are at the centre of the White Paper. The SingaporeCommunity values the extra hands it can attract from elsewhere. But I recognise that the physical congestion andthe cross-cultural differences have strained our hospitality in recent years.

However, the White Paper, as I said, must be viewed in the context of how it would allow our Singapore

Community to thrive as a people. To do that, the White Paper must operationalise in a way that upholds the corevalues of our nation.

So, what are some of the core values that are germane to today’s discussion?

First, the celebration of diversity and hybridity – codified in our pledge, our multiracial, multi-lingual and multi-religious landscape spurs creativity and variety - you can see how we enjoy Singlish, fish-head curry and even

take pride in the Peranakan culture in our everyday lives. We must uphold this tolerance for cultural diversity andreject cultural chauvinism.

2/27/13

25/77

Two, meritocracy – equality of chance for everyone so that everyone has a fair shot at moving up in life.

Three, belief in self-reliance and resilience – hand-up and not just hand- out measures.

Four, compassionate society. This should be at the core of the Singapore spirit.

Fifth, problem-solving and forward-looking ethos – we are a people that is constantly on the look-out for what

can be done better and we almost worry all the time about the future and whether life will be better.

The White Paper is a manifestation of wanting to put right what is not yet right – problem-solving, forward-looking.

In the same way, our population policy must be implemented in such a way that it ensures that additions to oursocial landscape be they people from Asia or elsewhere, be they transient workers or immigrants, do not erode

these values, otherwise our sense of well-being will suffer.

If these are people from foreign shores who find these ideals appealing and opt to give up their previous formalaffiliations to join our Singapore Community, then we should welcome them. If not, well then they should not bearound.

But it may take time for them to adopt this complete set of sensibilities of being a Singaporean, but let us not

question their place in the core nor say that they can only join us only if they have been through our schools,national service, or done a fair amount of community service. I would grant though that the National Servicescheme could be reviewed to address Singaporeans’ perceptions that there are free-riders amongst immigrants.Perhaps, a task force can be set up to address that. But more critically, when immigrants pick up their pink IC,we must expect and trust that they are committed to upholding our Singaporean way of life.

If one does not accept these values, whether or not you are born in Singapore, it will grate on the rest of theSingapore core. There is no point in having shiny new infrastructure, 5.9 million or 6.9 million people, if we live inconflict and discomfort all the time.

If the Singapore core lives out these values, this will translate to fair and just workplace practices; to respectful

cross-cultural communications in the workplace. The workplace must be an extension of our SingaporeCommunity – in that we will reject workplace discrimination, in that we will accept flexi-time arrangements andpaternity and parental leave, and facilitate cross-cultural understanding.

Now how else can the plans in the White Paper be informed by these core national values? Like the workplace,the broader economy should also be a more accurate embodiment of our core values, especially compassionate,

meritocracy, social mobility, self-reliance, and so on.

Here, I would like to bring up two examples. One, a Mr Nicholas Chee, a social entrepreneur who once sharedthis idea at a meeting at the Social Enterprise Association called “Unvoid the Void Deck”. He grew up in a 1-room flat setting and wants to give back to that community. He asked if it is possible for the state and thecommunity to develop a common tools room or workshop at the void deck so that social entrepreneurs may

teach the skills to 1-room flat residents who can in turn make high value artisanal products using community-owned tools or machines which they would otherwise not be able to afford. A very much sharing culture.

At the other end of the spectrum in Silicon Valley, a model has emerged. This is called a Tech Shop. It is a

2/27/13

26/77

combination of this idea of a shared tool shop described above, and also just-in-time education. Gone is the ideathat one needs to go through a three or four-year degree course in university for just-in-case education, butrather start adopting and learning just-in-time education. The Tech Shop is a place to receive the precise trainingthat one needs to turn ideas for products into reality, using a tool library where again needed machinery orcomputer software can be rented to operationalise these ideas.

Why have I shared these two examples? Research shows that beyond a certain level of national wealth or grossdomestic product (GDP) where basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and transport are generally met, there is adiminishing marginal return for every increased dollar earned. Singaporeans are no longer interested just ingrowth but quality growth and how it translates into well-being.

Just think about it – Singaporeans seemed quite happy in the 1970s when we were much poorer and people

rolled up their sleeves to do chores within the house and also in the community. We were poor in the pockets butwe had rich social ties.

Today, we are more affluent, we have more things than we probably need while our expectations and wantshave also skyrocketed. We lack the time and the settings to develop our social bonds with our neighbours andfriends. Our young feel entitled to a better life than the past generation, and the working age parents are striving

ever harder to deliver that. As Tom Wolfe, an acclaimed social realist and author noted, as people becomericher, their sense of entitlement increases and so do their level of frustration. Is not that a paradox?

So, as we design our physical, social and economic infrastructure, I urge that we find ways to create acollaborative environment that re-ignites the sense of connectedness within the Singapore Community; and inject

a higher-order of meaning into our daily lives, much like the Nicholas Chee’s suggestion of the Tech Shop inSilicon Valley.

If we succeed, we will find that the “social economy” can be used to generate a lot of what we need – carcooperatives, bicycle cooperatives, neighbourhood childcare networks and community home-care schemes, andso on, and so forth, entrepreneurship at the community level can also be given a boost.

This will be a shift from the ownership and entitlement economy of today to one of a shared social economy thatcould potentially lower the cost of living while increasing social capital and strengthening the Singapore core. Iwill elaborate more on this during my Budget speech.

Mdm Speaker, at the end of the day, the White Paper is about the well-being of our nation. It is about Singaporethat we want to call home. This is not just the responsibility of the Government, but the responsibility of all

Singaporeans. I urge that we give this White Paper a chance for us to be future ready but also collectively inwhatever we do, let us put people in the heart of all these efforts.

2.05 pm

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene : Mdm Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to take part in thisimportant debate. Our declining fertility rate, coupled with an ageing population, political and economic anxieties

and vulnerabilities, presents significant political, economic, social and cultural consequences. The angst, angerand anxiety on the ground and within the Government is palpable. A leap of faith is asked of this House and ofSingaporeans.

2/27/13

27/77

This House will successfully carry this motion. But that is probably the easiest part for the Government. Securing

a strong buy-in from Singaporeans is far from being a foregone conclusion. The White Paper on Populationshould be the start of a renewed effort towards continued and deep engagement with all stakeholders. It shouldnot be a document to end consultation and discussion. We should not be afraid to robustly revisit theassumptions and the parameters in the White Paper over the next 17 years and beyond.

I sincerely hope that the Government will take a nuanced and open-minded approach to the objections and

concerns expressed in this House and not look at them along partisan lines. I can safely say that this Houseagrees with the imperatives of economic growth, immigration, integration and infrastructure development. Wemay differ on the methods but the end-points are largely similar.

I am all for a population and Singapore that is both sustainable and dynamic. I am also for a sustainable andprincipled immigration policy, one that truly puts Singaporeans at the centre of all considerations and policies.

The population policy must serve Singaporeans, not Singaporeans serving the population policy.

Madam, I have deep reservations about the “operating system” behind the proposed roadmap. While theproposed amendments to the Motion do assuaged some of my concerns, the White Paper is primarily aneconomic roadmap. And the themes of vulnerability, fear, crisis and doom are reiterated. It is not a hopefuldocument, and the interventions by the front bench, in my mind, reinforce that. As such, I am unable to endorse

the White Paper.

While we aspire to a global city, a metropolis that is relevant, appealing to Singaporeans and the world alike, wecannot forget that we are, and need to be a nation-state as well. To be more specific, we cannot forget that weare a city-state – there is no hinterland that is within our jurisdiction that you and I can retreat to if we do not likethe bright lights of a global city. An American who does not like the global city of New York City can retreat to

upstate New York or the Mid-West.

The White Paper is disappointing in that, to all intents and purposes, it presents us with only one option. That inorder for us to have the requisite economic growth levels by 2020 and 2030, we need to have a certain requisitepopulation, something in the region of 6.5 million to 6.9 million by 2030. The White Paper has, unwittingly,

heightened the vulnerability and fear factor since it presents, depending on your vantage point, the best or worstoptions for Singapore. It reminds me of then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s T-I-N-A slogan: That“There is no alternative”. How do we create a sustainable and dynamic population and Singapore if we take thatas our starting point?

Let me deal with the three pillars of the White Paper. First, that “Singaporeans form the core of our society and

the heart of our nation”. What happens in the privacy of the bedroom has significant national consequences. Assuch, I welcome the latest enhancements to the Marriage and Parenthood package. I hope they work this timebut I am not so optimistic. We have moved to the norm of one-child or two children family as a result of thestrong anti-natalist policy in the 1970s and our dalliance with eugenics from the mid-1980s, which turbo-chargedthe natural contraceptive effect of education, wealth and more opportunities for women. As we continue to have

more tertiary educated Singaporeans and new citizens on this island, I do not see how the TFR is going upsignificantly.

I remained puzzled that we did not act affirmatively early enough since our TFR dipped below the replacementlevel as early as in 1976-1977. Small was beautiful then; but now big is beautiful. More crucially, does our poor

TFR reflect an innate and inchoate fear of the future? The White Paper does accentuate this fear.

2/27/13

28/77

The state can help with the costs of raising a family – that is the easy part. More difficult is the task ofengendering a genuine pro-family culture and environment. Money cannot get us there. It is about substance notform. This requires a whole and radical mindset shift, and not more talk or money. We need to move more

resolutely on this front, especially in our schools and workplaces. Stress levels are high and we should look at theconcern that our children do not have much of a childhood, and that many parents run home schools after theyfinish work. Yes, our schools may be teaching less so that our children may learn more. But it seems like they arestudying more and have even more homework. I see the self-esteem of young people increasingly being defined

or deflated by their academic grade point averages (GPAs).

Mdm Speaker, not only must we encourage more marriages and procreation, a pro-family environment must tryrequire us to reduce the “leakages”. Abortion, at about 12,000 annually over the last decade, is one majorleakage. We have a very liberal abortion regime. Can we do more for pregnant women, especially those who aremarried, to keep the unborn child they do not want?

Another leakage, which has been much discussed, is that we must do even more to get the economically inactiveSingaporeans into the workforce. Have we done enough or is it mere lip service?

How do we have Singaporeans at the core, the heart of the nation if the complexion of our society will changesignificantly with Singaporeans, including new citizens, forming only 55% of the population? By 2020, we mayhave 3.5 million or 3.6 million citizen hearts beating but warm bodies alone do not make for a national soul. It is

not a numbers game, of course, but just as the Government speaks of maintaining the racial composition, adisproportionate number of non-citizens and new citizens in a short span of time on this island will dramaticallyalter the Singaporean identity.

In essence, nation-building is about this national soul of ours. Do we impoverish it or do we sustain it with ourpopulation policy? The White Paper may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy of a weakened nation not

because of a poor economy but more likely because we continue to dilute what it means to be Singaporean.

Mdm Speaker, I am well aware that we are almost about to fall off the demographic cliff and as such we need tooutsource our fertility. Immigration is and will remain an imperative but how we go about it matters tremendously.We need to ask the “how” questions a lot more and manage the downstream effects and the lived realities that

ordinary Singaporeans encounter on a daily basis.

We will continue to need immigration – ranging from transient workers, permanent residents and citizens – butthis immigration must ultimately be of benefit to Singaporeans. This relentless search for foreign talent hasmarginalised Singaporeans. I fear that a re-invigorated immigration policy will mean that more Singaporeans willbe short-changed even more. As it is, a growing number of Singaporeans feel disenfranchised that we are

second-class citizens in our homeland.

Mdm Speaker, let me give an example. In some tax-payer funded institutions, foreigners are paid more thanequally-qualified Singaporeans for doing the same job. This comes about because foreigners are given housingallowances and education allowances for their children below 21 years of age.

This was necessary perhaps two, three decades ago when these institutions were seeking to build their

international reputations, the Singapore dollar was not as strong as it is today, and Singapore was probablyregarded as a hardship assignment. But things are vastly different today. And yet we perpetuate this differentialtreatment. What signals are we sending to Singaporeans with this blatant discrimination?

2/27/13

29/77

On Monday this week, the Acting Minister for Manpower noted that the SMRT’s PRC drivers’ total packageincludes transport and housing costs. However, at the other end of the spectrum, as I have just narrated, suchallowances to foreigners are not seen as part of the total remuneration package for them when comparingSingaporeans to non-Singaporeans.

Recently, given the increases in rental and property prices, the foreigners in one tax-payer funded institution weregiven higher housing allowances. However, no similar adjustments were made for Singaporeans who are alsoaffected by the property price increases. Never mind that some foreigners were also collecting rent on theirhomes in their home country.

Some years back when employers’ CPF contributions were no longer compulsory for some foreigners, some

Singapore tax-payer funded institutions decided to make direct payments to the foreigners in lieu of theemployer’s CPF contributions. The thinking was that the foreigner should be entitled to the benefit of equivalentof the employer’s CPF contribution even though there was no statutory requirement to do so. So, payequalisation works in one direction only: What the Singaporean gets, the foreigner must also get. However, what

the foreigner gets, the Singaporean need not or cannot get.

We hear increasingly of discrimination at the workplaces. How foreigners prefer to employ their own kind; howSingaporeans get passed over because being local is not good enough, and is being held against you. I know ofmany Singaporeans who would like to come back home with their families but, professionally, they are better-offbeing away. This “foreigner-is-better” mentality is real not apparent. As a foreign Caucasian academic once

declared to an academic friend of mine, when explaining why a Caucasian was used in the cover-photo in apublicly funded local educational institution admission brochure, that foreign Caucasian academic said, “It makesus a world class school”.

Is it any surprise that our liberal immigration policy is also resisted by Singaporean PMETs since the operation insome of our tax-payer funded institutions results in unfairness and injustice? What does it mean to be

Singaporean in this case? It is a badge of dishonour in some of our tax-payer institutions when the Singaporenationality is seen as not being good enough.

To compound the palpable concern in all quarters, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policylike immigration is not that every citizen gains from it – at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreignworkers and new immigrants to be blamed for a local job lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public

infrastructure not keeping up with the influx of immigrants. In short, the opportunity cost of a liberal immigrationregime is perceived by the average Singaporean to be very high. The concern at all levels of the workforce is thatlocal talent are being passed over given the preference for “foreign talent”. There is also a strong perception thatSingaporeans are doing the “heavy lifting”. So the societal ambivalence, angst, and increasingly, anger towards

immigration is to be expected. Singaporeans do not ask for preferential treatment but just fair and equitabletreatment, a level playing field.

In particular, Singaporeans regard National Service as a crucial marker of commitment and loyalty. Butoperationally ready national servicemen are feeling that National Service is indeed a liability. Some employersprefer non-Singaporean male employees because there is no issue of their being away from work for

operationally ready National Service. To these employers, let me say that we Singaporeans provide the securityumbrella for your businesses and your comfortable and secure lives here. You ought to be ashamed ofyourselves, especially the Singaporean employers.

2/27/13

30/77

Mdm Speaker, like it or not, many Singaporeans are not so much concerned with transient immigration asconventional wisdom may have it. Much as sometimes our treatment of transient foreign workers holding workpermits and S-passes leaves much to be desired, they do the jobs that Singaporeans are not prepared to do.

Where there is deep concern relates to jobs for PMEs, here our liberal open-door immigration policy is seen ascompromising the prospects of Singaporeans. Employers often do not do enough to develop local talent since it

is much easier and quicker to seek an “off the shelf” solution in a foreign professional.

The second pillar of the White Paper is at best encapsulated in the following statement: “… our population andworkforce must support a dynamic economy that can steadily create good jobs and opportunities to meetSingaporeans’ hopes and aspirations.” In this regard, the Government has stated that it is not growth at all costs.But I am discomforted by the thinking that the population and workforce must support the economy. Should not

it be that the economy should support the population and the workforce?

There is a fundamental difference between the two approaches notwithstanding that the economy and workforceare interlinked. In the former, which is what the White Paper advocates and our current approach, if theeconomy is growing at red-hot pace, then the population and workforce must be up to the task of facilitatingthat. The economy leads the way. This is where if we need 6.9 million on this little red dot to support the

economy, we jolly well proceed full steam ahead to make that happen. But are we letting the tail wag the dog?Are we putting the cart before the horse?

Let me emphasise that economic growth is crucial. It is what that has made my family progress much all withinone generation. But the economic considerations cannot overwhelm our policy responses.

In the latter approach of the economy supporting the population and workforce, we determine the population

size that is optimal and the economic growth that can be supported by such a population. This approach doesnot preclude immigration at all. We will need immigration so long as our TFR is below replacement level. Eventhen, I question the planning parameter of the need to augment our population using a TFR of 2.1.

The White Paper’s emphasising the need for immigration — or the alternative scenario of a lower quality of life

— remains quintessentially material and pragmatic. There is limited appeal to and a lack of definitive assurance ofthe affective dimension that a contested major policy like immigration is so badly in need of. A consequence ofclose to half-century of nation building, Singaporeans are beginning to imbibe an aspirational approach towardscitizenship. This precipitation of a Singapore national identity and belonging means that a hyper-rationalisticjustification of immigration is not likely to nurture an affective acceptance of the immigration policy and regime.

As it is often said, the longest distance is between the head and the heart. Singaporeans’ growing sense ofnational identity has made them more protective of the home turf; the economic and other rationalistic justificationseem all too expedient and enervating of the national spirit, identity and ethos. The immigrant is seen quite often inmono-dimensionally terms, as an economic immigrant.

A vibrant economy is our shared purpose but what are the shared values that will discipline the shared purpose?

There are a few ways to a vibrant economy, each with its own price tag. But we cannot be penny-wise andpound-foolish. A vibrant economy cannot be sustained if there are no shared values. And a strong Singaporeancore can provide those shared values.

The White Paper’s third pillar states that “we must continue to keep Singapore a good home. Our city must

2/27/13

31/77

continue to be well-managed, well-planned, and well-developed”. To that end, infrastructure needs of a changingpopulation and economy have to be met in a timely and efficient way, while preserving and enhancing a green

environment. Madam, no one can disagree with that.

However, the White Paper was deafeningly silent on the question of affordability given the larger populationnumbers which will put pressure on the costs of living and the quality of life. What about the income divide? Theoverwhelming focus in the White Paper on the hardware means that the crucial software bit was left out in the

cold. How do we endow a soul amid the sprouting of concrete and glass around us? We must not confuse state-or economy-building with nation-building.

We have heard a lot about the benefits that come from a larger population but what about the costs that comewith a larger population? What happens beyond 2030? The White Paper, however, jam brakes there. How arewe going to support the increase in population when the new citizens themselves reach the end of their working

lives in 2050 or 2060? The White Paper does not tell us. Are we kicking the can further down the road, a canthat will only get larger with each kick? Are we going to require substantial population top-ups every generationsuch that the Singaporean identity becomes meaningless?

We should assume that we are unable to raise our TFR to replacement level. We have to do more smartly andwith less. Yes, immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic, and socio-

cultural landscape. This means that immigration will continue to be politicised and remain a contested issue.Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can helpsecure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses ofimmigration. Singaporeans will be persuaded, at both cognitive and affective levels, if it can be shown that the

overall welfare is increased, our interests adequately looked after, and our identities secure and safeguarded.More importantly, special efforts will have to be made for those affected negatively by the immigration policy. Inparticular, Singaporean workers whose wages or prospects have been or will be depressed by the largenumbers of transient foreign manpower at the low-skilled and even at the skilled levels.

Let me touch on immigration. I have reservations about how integration can be meaningful given the rapid influxof immigrants not just between now and 2030 but in the past decade. Our immigration policy must strive toensure that the average Singaporean is not made to feel inferior or that they are taken for granted. The“Singaporean First” policy must not be mere lip service. It must have substantive merit and meaning. For a start,the Government should completely drop the use of the term, “foreign talent”. Used in official discourse to

reinforce the message that newcomers add value to our society, this superlative buzzword is terribly marginalisingand patronising.

Mdm Speaker : Mr Tan, you may want to wind up your speech.

Asst Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene : Yes. Mdm Speaker, let me conclude. Foresight is seldom 20/20whereas hindsight is always 20/20. Right-sizing our population is not an exact science. But we must have our

hearts and souls in the right place. We cannot enervate the national spirit or else if we achieve the economicgrowth targets in the next 17 years, Singapore will just be a place to make a living but not a home. And that willonly hasten our collective peril.

Our global city aspirations must be tempered by the hard-nosed reality that we have to be a home, rather than a

2/27/13

32/77

hotel. If non-Singaporeans and Singaporeans alike view Singapore as a hotel, then our sovereignty is not worthfighting for. Madam, it is with a heavy heart that I oppose the motion and the amendments proposed.

2.26 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Moulmein-Kallang) : Madam, emotions of many Singaporeans range fromsurprise, despair to anger, when they read the media headlines of “6.9 million in Singapore in 2030” in mediaheadlines. Many could not go beyond the emotion and decided the entire paper is not worth reading, anddepended very much on commentaries as the source of information.

To me, the Population White Paper is a paper that exposes the awkwardness of the Government in engaging

Singaporeans in the new normal. In its eagerness to meet some self-imposed deadline for land use andinfrastructure planning; in its anxiety to offer a framework to curb Singapore's ever-growing foreign labourworkforce, the White Paper was launched in a hurry. It was not circulated in its draft form for public consultationwhen this important step was what Government would typically do when tabling bills in Parliament. Good intent;

bad execution.

The Government missed the precious opportunity to engage the public and garner the views and suggestions ofSingaporeans to address the hard truths the White Paper surfaced. Hard truths such as: One, the alarming ratesat which the foreign workforce is growing; two, the alarming rate at which Singaporeans are ageing; and three,the alarming rate at which birth rates are declining.

The tone of the White Paper comes across as prescriptive, without offering the different planning scenarios andhow they impact the lives of Singaporeans.

It gives the perception of offering a shared vision of Singapore when it does not. It offers little other lifestylechoice to Singaporeans, except that of an urbanised setting. It is the outcome of forms of engagement such astown halls and traditional meetings that do not cover deeper sparring of ideas and options. It should have taken

reference from the pace and more updated methods of citizen engagement currently used in the ongoing NationalConversations initiated by the Prime Minister and led by Minister Heng Swee Keat.

Madam, many MPs have fed back to the Prime Minister on the responses of the ground to the White Paper. AsMPs, we are the proxies of the people we serve and represent their voices, we must. Madam, although ourconstituents' voices do not often come in one united tune; in this case, many people in the Singapore of 2012

have spoken. An overwhelming majority said "no" to a 6.9 million Singapore in 2030.

The moral of the story Government must learn in exercises of this nature are these – one, more haste, less speed;and two, unless people know how much we care, they do not care how much we know. They do not even wantto hear that 6.9 million is not a target.

On a more robust planning tool, Madam, when I was a young Product Manager in the fast IT industry, products

then took one to two years to develop. Today, some products are obsolete within months. Many of the planningassumptions one holds for product or service development, whether in the private or public sector, can quicklybecome obsolete. Such is the pace of change and the level of unknowns we are dealing with in this 21st Century.

I, therefore, find it hard to fathom the confidence in which the future is being predicted -- both in the White Paper

by Government and the alternate proposal put together by the Workers' Party. The ability to gaze into the crystal

2/27/13

33/77

ball and generate firm strategies for even three-year windows is very rare these days, not to mention an 18-yearforecast into 2030.

The White Paper is repeatedly punctuated by qualifiers, claiming that the roadmap is subject to many factorssuch as the external environment, productivity, workforce growth, creativity and how citizens will respond to the

incentives in the last Marriage and Parenthood Package.

Even the Workers’ Party’s attempt at crystal-ball gazing is unconvincing. It has hastily put together an alternateproposal to target a sexy 5.3-million to 5.9-million number, below the 6-million psychological threshold for mostSingaporeans. This alternative proposal is also premised on a planning assumption that it would be able to slapand whip the Government to work harder to increase the TFR (Total Fertility Rates) of couples; to get more

elderly folks and women to join the workforce; to force SMEs to re-structure their business models now; and toturn off the tap of foreign workers with immediate effect for the next seven years.

Madam, there are foreign workers and foreign workers. Some we do not welcome. But some we need. Whatdoes the immediate turn off of the tap of foreign workers mean to people like me who serve in the social servicesector? Those of us who run nursing homes and for me personally, day activity centres for the more severely

disabled? What if local Singaporeans continue to shun these jobs not because of pay but because it is just plainhard, unpleasant work?

Madam, I believe there are too many unknowns for everyone, for anyone to be truly confident about thepopulation trajectories -- whether they are Workers’ Party's 5.9 million, NMP Laurence Lien's preferred 6

million or the Government's “worst-case-scenario” of 6.9 million.

Madam, the thinking model applied in the White Paper and subsequently also adopted by the Workers’ Party inthe alternate proposal is way too rigid and simplistic for the 21st century. I would suggest developing a morerobust forecasting tool that computes a few population scenarios starting from the current 5.3 million and adesired Singapore core; a more robust and sensitive tool that will inform strategies as a result of regular data

inputs updates on variables such as the number of citizen babies; the number of new citizens; local work forcestrengths; and how firms are doing at the productivity front.

One young man, a high-functioning young man with Asperger’s Syndrome, suggested to me that perhaps, MsPhua, the population can be managed like the systolis and diastolis – the heart muscles that relax and contractwhen they take in blood and release it to the arteries. Do not be rigid, he said. Depending on the performance of

both external and internal factors, pull back when it gets higher than expected, and push forth when it is lower.

By all means, play safe and ring fence the land and resources that need to be reserved so that we will not becaught under-providing one day. But let us not be over-zealous in our planning because no one really knows itall.

Think three to five years! One of the reasons why Singaporeans could not emotionally move beyond the media

headlines of 6.9 million is that their concerns with the hot-button issues of the day – some of these issues aredeep-rooted and quite difficult to solve; but address them, we must. As the parable goes, one would be maderuler over many when one can be entrusted to look after the few. So let us apply what today’s amended motionsays, settle the current strains on the infrastructure.

Next, 10 suggestions. Madam, the issues of Singapore today cannot be solved with the mindsets and solutions of

2/27/13

34/77

the past. We need to seriously engage other Singaporeans to inject more innovative and more lateral thinking inaddressing the hard truths surfaced by the White Paper.

I suggest 10 ways to enhance workforce participation, TFR and productivity, for Government’s consideration.

(1) For the senior Singaporeans, remove ageism practices such as CPF cuts from the age of 50 and annualemployment extensions from 62.

(2) Start a jobs creation and clearing house for seniors to innovatively design or redesign jobs that will match theskills, physical wellness and preferred hours of the seniors. Include Stay-Home-Parents if they so wish to take onsome flexible job postings.

(3) For persons with disabilities, put up added incentives to have corporations collaborate with disability groupsto start Social Enterprises to train, to employ and to coach those who are able to work.

Do not give up on those who cannot work at full productivity. Many of the people with special needs can stillcontribute in the workforce and welcomed by employers if they are paid by employers based on theirproductivity level. Do not let what the world calls “Minimum Wage” or “Progressive Wage” deprive them of achance to work. Make the Special Employment Incentive already launched in Budget 2012 for the disabled apermanent feature.

(4) For foreign domestic helpers already here, increase their productivity whilst ensuring they will not beexploited. Some small families or those with grown children do not need full-time helpers. Let employers shareon the condition that these helpers are compensated better and the working hours transparent and conditionsfavourable.

(5) For National Servicemen, tap on them to take on assignments in projects in education, healthcare and social

service sectors as well -- projects that will not only improve their resilience physically, emotionally but also givethem exposure to know what they are defending. Bring Total Defence to the next level!

(6) Seriously consider closing one casino to divert manpower from the IRs to the SMEs. I fully agree with NMPMr Teo Siong Seng's observation that the IRs have now become contributors to the manpower crunch in theservice industry.

(7) For couples who cannot conceive, aggressively help to facilitate child adoptions. Provide family educationtrainings to help them become better parents; in addition to the good adoption leave incentive that wasannounced under the Marriage and Population (M&P) Package.

(8) For Singaporeans with foreign spouses and Singaporean children, relax the criteria for approval, especiallythe criteria relating to academic qualifications. Comb through and approve past rejection cases where the foreign

spouse of Singapore children were rejected even if they have lived in Singapore for many years. And please,especially look out for my past appeals which were rejected!

(9) For SMEs, rank them and assign productivity coaches to those with higher-potential of scalability andincreased national regional or even global footprints. Do not only write cheques; groom them, help them.

(10) In education, seriously study the Finnish system and adapt it for Singapore. There is serious merit in pilotingmodels that take away the high-stake exams such as the PSLE to allow students a through-train to Secondary 4

2/27/13

35/77

or Secondary 5 within the same school. Stay far away from the South Korean system which is a worse pressurecooker than Singapore in education.

Next, on putting the horse before the cart. Madam, the amended motion now provides for medium term reviewsof the population policies and assumptions. The White Paper on population needs to be updated. I proposedoing that after the next phase of the National Conversations.

So far, more than 16,000 Singaporeans have given their views on the kind of society and the kind of people theywould want to become in 20 years’ time. More than 130 unpaid volunteers helped out in these conversations.

The scope of the National Conversations covers more than just population and infrastructure. It is bigger than thescope of the Population White Paper. Participants in the National Conversations dream of a home of hope andheart -- of shared values, of strong families, of other ways to define success, of giving a leg up to those who aredisadvantaged, of active and dignified ageing. There are some common and shared aspirations; but there is

extreme difference in some areas too, for example, between the conservatives and those of us who are moreliberal.

But these aspirations must be the horse that comes before the cart. They must form the foundations of the WhitePapers of the future.

Phase Two of the National Conversations will look at a consolidation of the key inputs that Singaporeans have

for 2030. The data consolidated in this Population White Paper would serve as excellent contextual informationfor meaningful discussions and better idea-generation.

I urge the Opposition MPs and especially the Workers’ Party to join in crafting a shared vision together. As partof the Singapore family, do not withhold your participation; do not withhold your ideas to use them as fodder forGovernment bashing. In fact, stop the Government bashing; enough of it already. Stop repeating the narrative

that the PAP Government is a heartless common enemy of the people that has brought Singaporeans nothing butmisery. The narrative has continued from political rallies to this House. Oftentimes, both its tone and content arenot constructive. It discourages good people, whether they are public servants or volunteers, who havecontributed to try to make Singapore better, imperfect though they are. The narrative has divided and polarised

our country, pitting one against the other and prevented the healing that some of us were hoping for after eachpolitical election – so that we can come back and focus on nation building.

As MPs of the incumbent ruling party linked to Government, we promise to try harder and work harder for thepeople. The only thing that we cannot promise, the only promise we cannot make, is to turn our cheek every timewe are slapped.

In conclusion, Madam, the people have spoken through their MPs and through their direct valuable feedback.Unless the Government acknowledges and acts on it, we may win the battle in this House but lose the war for thehearts of our people outside this House. I am heartened that the Prime Minister has listened -- loud and clear.And yes, the Government is not gunning for the 6.9 million and will do all it can to address the top concerns ofSingaporeans, I hear.

The original motion has been amended. Had the motion not been amended, a number of us PAP MPs would findit very difficult to support it. When some of us say “Aye” later, we are supporting a motion that: one,acknowledges that 6.9 million is not a population target of the Government; two, a motion that supports aSingapore core with top priority in encouraging Singaporeans to get married and have children, with a calibrated

2/27/13

36/77

pace of immigration to prevent our citizen population from further shrinking; we support an amended motion thatrecognises and places priority on resolving the infrastructure problems of today; we support an amended motionthat will improve the current White Paper by carrying out medium term reviews of the population policies and the

assumptions.

Let us do all of the above; engage not only our heads but our hearts and our hands and work towards a dynamicpopulation for a dynamic Singapore! On this note, I support the amended motion.

2.43 pm

The Acting Minister for Social and Family Development and Senior Minister of State for Defence

(Mr Chan Chun Sing) : Mdm Speaker, the White Paper before us is not just about population numbers nor is itjust about infrastructural plans. It is fundamentally about the lives of our families and the values we hold dear. It isabout how we relate to each other and to the rest of the world.

How we respond to this challenge will reflect our values and shape our identity. The roots of our challenges lie inour ageing population and our families. How do we care for our growing numbers of elderly? How do care for

our lower income families? How do we care for our young?

Many have spoken on the growing income gap. It is an issue of concern. It is something close to our hearts. Wewant a more equal society. In the many, our Singapore Conversations that I have attended, this has beenconsistently highlighted. The question is how to achieve this?

We know and we accept that not all can progress evenly in a society. We cannot ensure equal outcomes but wecan maximise opportunities for our people to fulfil their potentials and diverse aspirations. We should not holdback those amongst us who can progress faster or further. Just to pretend that we can thus achieve equality.Instead we should let the stronger ones flourish and bring back a bigger harvest for all of us to share.

We must imbue in our more successful ones the sense of responsibility and care to help those who are weaker

amongst us. We must agree as a society, that those who have the least must be given more help.

Growth will give us a better chance to help our people to improve their lives over time. Growing slower does notmean that we will have a more equal society. In fact, if we grow below a certain rate, the low income in oursociety actually suffers negative income growth in real terms. We saw this first hand in the first five years of 2000.

During Monday’s Parliamentary Question time, I shared with this House that while the average real income for

Singaporeans has increased by more than 2% per annum for the last ten years, it only increased by 0.1% for thelowest income group. For this group, the more rapid growth in the last five years did not and failed to make upfor the negative growth or low growth in the preceding five years. We closed the gap with various assistanceschemes. We could only afford to do that with overall net growth for our country.

So when we call for a slowdown or no-growth, please have a care for those who are in the lower income

groups. It matters very little for a rich person whether his income is growing at 4% or 5%. But for the poorerones amongst us the difference could be 1% or -2%.

How do we care for our increasing number of elderly and disadvantaged? This is not an academic debate aboutthe theoretical possibility to improve resident workforce growth. I have the privilege to serve in Tanjong Pagarand the Ministry of Social and Family Development. I frequent the areas of Bukit Merah, Tanglin Halt and

2/27/13

37/77

Commonwealth. If anyone wants to see the future population profile of Singapore in 2030, I have already seen itthere today.

I regularly visit the old folks’ homes and disability homes across our island. I see for myself the increasing numberof elderly without caregivers. I see more and more adult disabled outliving their caregivers and parents. I always

bid them farewell with a heavy heart.

Besides the management level, almost all of our care staff in these homes are foreigners. They stay in thesehomes 24/7 to care for our elderly and disabled. What will we do without them? Where can I find more in thecoming years to care for them?

Yes, every one extra Singaporean that I can get is one less foreigner I need. But I cannot assume that increasing

the labour force participation rate will solve the problem. Our male labour force participation rate has alreadyreached the OECD level. It is likely to fall in the coming years as we have more old people and less young ones.

From the OECD experience, our women labour force participation rate has at most another 6% to grow. So it isnot that we are not trying to get more locals to join the workforce. As Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin saidyesterday, we will continue to try all ideas from both sides of the House. But we have to be realistic of what we

can achieve.

But please also do not do a disservice to our stay-at-home-moms and assume that they are not doing anythinguseful and can easily join the workforce if we just increase their salaries. Many of them are already taking care ofour old and young.

So please have a care when we say no more foreigners to help care for our old and weak. If there is no more

increase, I will have to take the quota from other sectors -- SMEs, construction, retail, shipyards and others. If Itake from these sectors, what will happen to them? The numbers I need in the health, eldercare and disabilitysector are not small. Neither are the skill sets required the same as those in the F&B, retail or constructionsectors.

I need to start more community healthcare schemes; build 100 senior activity centres, 50 senior care centres;extend the Wellness Programme to every constituency; fund more innovative approaches like tele-medicine;encourage more senior befriender services; build more senior homes; build more studio apartments withintegrated care services; and, as a last resort, build more institutional homes.

Productivity improvements alone cannot fund this manpower that we need.

Other big cities do not have this problem. Their old, their weak retire outside the city. We are both a city and astate. Whether you stay in Hougang, Jurong or Woodlands, we are all fellow Singaporeans. We have to takecare of our old, our weak, and our disabled. They are our people. We have to care for them.

So, again, please be mindful about what we say about foreign manpower and slower growth. These choicesaffect our poor much, much more than it affects the rest of us.

Mdm Speaker, over the last week, many have raised concerns about whether we have done all that we can, topromote families. Many in this Chamber have also given their valuable inputs and suggestions on how to raise ourTFR. We will certainly follow up on all these suggestions made by Members.

2/27/13

38/77

We agree that families lie at the heart of our solutioning. Even though none of the major East Asian cities have

achieved our TFR, we nevertheless still study them to see what good ideas they have. Similarly, we look at theScandinavian models even though their culture and social norms are different from ours.

We find good practices in their models: Having fathers play an equal and active role in parenting; having sharedparental leave; providing affordable and accessible childcare support; providing family-friendly work environment

and practices; having child-friendly practices in restaurants; strengthening family education from young.

There are many things that we can learn from. The recent M&P Package reflects many of these but we are stilllearning. We will need a whole-of-society approach to embrace this family-first philosophy. We hope Membersof this House will support us when we roll out more pro-family measures. We hope businesses and employerswill support us even though it requires them to make difficult and sometimes painful adjustments.

Most importantly, we want to focus on early childhood development. We want to ensure that the next generationwill have the best possibility to move up. I have always said even if this generation is poor, we must make surethat the next generation has the best opportunity to move on, that the children from our less privilegedbackgrounds will not start too far behind their peers in school.

We will do more. We will build more centres, make them more accessible, help them provide higher quality for

the mass market. We will push out even more programmes to support teachers training, curriculum developmentand operators management. At the same time, we want to educate parents that the most expensive course maynot be the most suitable one. We need to ensure that there is age-appropriate learning according to each child’sneeds and not add unnecessary pressures and stress to the family or children.

Many Members in this Chamber and people outside have also pointed out that having families and children go

way beyond money. The most important and difficult piece has to do with our values and perspectives.

Recently, I visited an old couple in a 3-room flat. They used to stay in a 1-room flat and brought up their sixchildren there. The children used to share one mattress and some of them often slept underneath the altar in thehouse. I saw a family photo. At least four of them have made it to the university. All of their children have their

flats now: 3-, 4-, 5-room flats, like the typical Singaporean family. The elderly couple was very proud that theyhave all made it without any Government help all these years. As we talked, they told me that they have onlythree grandchildren. When I asked if they would want more grandchildren, they asked me back, “How to havemore?” Their children feel that their houses are not big enough to give their grandchildren their personal spaces.They worry about the high cost of living. Their children worry if they can afford tuition and enrichment classes for

the grandchildren; their children worry if they have to make adjustments or give up their careers. Theyacknowledge that the Government and society have been doing much more to provide help nowadays than everbefore. But they still have many worries.

This is not easy. Our society has changed. Our perspectives and expectations have also changed. But we mustkeep trying.

On another Saturday morning, I visited a family when everyone was around. I was pleasantly surprised. I askedif the children did not have CCAs or other lessons. The mother shot back at me with a reply: weekends arefamily time; protected time; time to bond as a family; time to do things together as a family. No overtime forparents; no extra lessons for kids. This family has made another choice. I hope we have more families like this.

2/27/13

39/77

Clearly, having a family goes beyond monetary and housing considerations. Having a spouse and children cannotbe evaluated like a financial balance sheet. It is a commitment to care for each other. Neither marriage nor

parenthood necessarily has a linear or positive correlation with one's material wellbeing.

Ultimately, personal choices reflect our priorities and sense of values. We will continue to do what we can, tohelp our families to grow from strength to strength. Yet the summation of all our personal choices will have animpact on the future of our country, Singapore.

Mdm Speaker, I used to chair the National Integration Council. We are keenly aware of the challenges in

schools, National Service, at the workplace and in the community. Integration is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Itis also not true that only the People’s Association is making efforts to promote integration. The schools, theworkplaces and the community are all doing their part. All our schools, polytechnics and universities haveprogrammes and systems to encourage integration. All our community partners are chipping in. They all want to

play an active part to integrate the newcomers amongst us. They all have plans to do even more and better.

For the majority who are transient workers, our aim is to share with them our social norms so that we can livealongside each other with less friction. Hopefully, they leave us having positive memories of their times with usand become a supporter of our cause in their own countries.

For those who intend to sink their roots here, we have higher expectations. We want them to have shared

memories, shared values and most importantly, a shared vision with us. We want true engagement for both oldand new citizens and citizens-to-be. We want quality and not just quantity engagements. We want to providemultiple platforms to nudge people to contribute to the community and in the process identify and bond with thecommunity. We also know that we cannot force the issue or make it overly transactional.

The White Paper proposes to slow down the intake of foreign labour and new citizens. Not just bringing in fewer

immigrants each year, but allowing more time for adjustment. This will help strengthen our integration efforts.

We acknowledge that some of these people in the queue are foreigners who have married locals, and it wouldnot be fair for families to face the constant uncertainty in staying together. Any inflow of foreigners will need toconsider the capacity of our infrastructure. We need to achieve the balance, we need to try harder and that iswhat we are going to do.

But, what is our identity? When I was in the army, I had a unit where there were only eight out of 32 soldierswhom some in the House would call “true-blue Singaporeans”. The rest were either not born here or raised here.I asked why they would fight together. None of them gave me a high-brow answer like how many per cent ofSingaporeans are there in Singapore. They fight because their buddies fight alongside them. They will defend this

place because this is home – where they share common experiences, common values and most importantly acommon vision for a better tomorrow.

Our job is to do our best to support our NSmen in their duties to our country. Our job is not to constantly talkdown their motivation, deflate their morale and question their sacrifice.

Will Members of this House fight for Singaporeans and Singapore if there are X or Y million foreigners living

here amongst us? If our answer is yes, then the answer from my NSmen will be an unequivocal yes as well. But ifour answer is no, then I do not need to ask my NSmen any further. This is not politics. This is leadership.

2/27/13

40/77

It is not easy. Our NSmen sacrifice time and effort to uphold our defence. Often, our NSmen feel thecompetition from the foreigners here and they wonder if they will be disadvantaged. It is a heavy price to pay forour independence. But I am confident that they understand this price that we pay, because this country belongs

to us.

Let us not start drawing lines to divide who is a true Singaporean and who is not. Is someone born aSingaporean, having lived 15 years overseas, speaks with a foreign twang, comes back to Singapore to serve hisNS, any less a Singaporean? Or is a foreign child who came here at the age of ten, embraces our values andsystems, speaks Singlish and goes on to serve NS any less Singaporean?

We have always been an open society. We draw strength from this. Unlike others who define their nationality bytheir tribal lineage, or those who define their nationhood through many years of history and perhaps persecution,we are a young country with fifty years of history.

We have come to be proud of our unique heritage because of what we have achieved over time − defining ouridentity through our common values, common experiences and shared future. This is a more positive and uplifting

way to define nationality than the division by place of birth, race, language or religion.

If we believe that the Singaporean Dream of multi-racialism, meritocracy, incorruptibility, rule of law, societybefore self, are all values that we want to hold dear to, then we have the ingredients to build our nation.Economic success can never be the glue that bonds us together. Economic success buys us time to forge a

common bond, develop a set of common values, form a system of governance and define a common futuretogether.

If economic success is the only glue, then will our people stay when times are tough, or when we have manyyears of recession? Or will our people, like the 1965 generation, stay and build a nation that we are proud of, inspite of our inadequacies, in spite of our imperfections and all our inability to promise them anything except

blood, sweat and tears?

The 1965 generation taught me an important lesson. Nationhood is not defined by what this country can give us.It is defined by what we can give, and what we can contribute and how we can overcome our challengestogether.

We are now similarly at a crossroad where our challenges are no less daunting. We need to make tough

decisions on how we care for our old, our young, our weak, our children and our families.

I urge Members of this House to rise to the occasion and seize this chance to bond as a nation. Let us speak notto divide. Let us not focus just on the numbers. Let us focus on our shared values and identity. Be it left or right,what matters most is that we choose the same path and walk it together. Let us choose the option that properlyprovides for our poor, our old, our young and our families in Singapore so that we can all build a better home

together.

Mdm Speaker, on that note, I urge Members of the House to support this motion and the amendment, so thatthe planners can go forth and get the work done, while we do our best to manage our economy, take care of ourpeople and provide the best future that we can for the next generation.

3.05 pm

2/27/13

41/77

Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol) : Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to join the debate.I rise in support of the motion and the proposed amendments. I support the principles and the intent of the paper,but I have a problem with some of the details.

First, I would bring Members’ attention to footnote 12, on page 40, where reference is made to nursing as a

low-skilled job. Madam, this is inaccurate and inappropriate. My nursing colleagues are dedicated, hard-working skilled professionals, doing a challenging job in difficult conditions. They take pride in their work, theyhave specialised knowledge, specialised skills. They are not interchangeable warm bodies and pairs of hands.Many have degrees and years of post-graduate training. We need to inspire more Singaporeans to join the caringprofession, and to label it in this way serves no one. This should be fixed. I believe an amendment and an

apology would be appropriate.

I have further concerns. As has been pointed out, the growth of our population will require extensive building andredevelopment.

The Land Use Plan clearly explains how and where we will obtain land for building more homes and amenities.Instead of emphasising the parts of Singapore which will be built up, developed and redeveloped, is it possible

that we can have lists of more sites that will be preserved, identified as such, and protected? There are manyplans for green spaces. How many will be permanent? Would the Government be prepared to identify moreareas which will never be redeveloped? Would we be able to reassure citizens that they can enjoy specific greenor open or communal spaces in perpetuity? Preserving the old and the familiar spaces is important as it ensures

that people do not feel constantly displaced, which is likely to happen when their physical environment keepschanging. The Land Use Plan does detail the many parks, and park connectors that we have and that areplanned. But it fails to specify to what extent these and other shared spaces are protected, and to what extent wecommit to preserving our surroundings.

Surely we can find a few more sites within our wonderful 715.8 square kilometres, where we can boldly say,

"Your grandchildren can enjoy this as much as you do, please take care of it?”

Grandchildren are my next concern. There is a severe shortage of childcare places, nationwide 20,000 morechildcare places are being planned by 2017, four years from now, but I have childcare centres that are nowstruggling to recruit staff. How is the Government planning to deal with the severe shortage of labour in thissector, in the face of plans to further restrict foreign labour growth? What plans are there to ensure that these

places will be operational in good time?

Our towns, especially our new towns, are populated over a relatively short time. If we ramp up childcarecapacity too aggressively, in about 10 years or more, some of it is going to be oversupply. Would theGovernment consider solutions to significantly increase the provision of childcare facilities at the workplaceinstead? The proportion of employees within a company or cluster of businesses that need childcare is less likely

to vary significantly over time, as compared to within a new housing estate. This approach will address the issueof over-demand for services in a young housing estates as well as the later oversupply when the children growup. It will also make it easier for working parents, rather than having to rely on the grandparents. With ourchanging demography, the age gap between a grandchild and a grandparent is increasing. For some families I

know, the grandparent is unable to care for the child, nor take their first-born grandchild to the childcare centre. Iam suggesting that we augment the current capacity with a different emphasis, to serve the needs of families withdifferent challenges.

2/27/13

42/77

Similarly, the Government has put forth proposals to increase our infrastructure, and has defended these with

confidence and certainty. Minister Khaw has repeatedly said "Don't worry" and reassured us that "It will beawesome". Madam, the plans are indeed awesome, but I do worry. How will this infrastructure get built on timein the face of a tightening labour pool? To what extent will the cost of providing this infrastructure rise, as the costof labour rises?

Madam, one further concern I have is the lack of explicit discussion in the White Paper of its possibleinaccuracy. Population science is not exact, and as past experience has shown, forward projections can turn outto be off the mark, sometimes by a very significant margin. We have in the past reached particular milestones ofpopulation size or fertility rate drop way ahead of the forecast. The presentation of facts, statistics andprojections with such confidence has given rise to the perception that many of these factors are under the direct

control of the Government, when they are not. As Acting Minister Tan Chuan-Jin alluded to yesterday, there isno master control for GDP, nor for migration numbers. There are instead hundreds of daily individual decisionsto serve specific purposes: Do we support this company? Do we support this business? Do we allow this familyto bring in their relative? Do we allow this person to stay in Singapore and become a citizen? An explicitstatement of the bigger uncertainty would be a completion of the commitment to transparency.

Madam, some have suggested that today is not the end of the debate, but rather the beginning. Others havesuggested that if we are still debating these issues in the future, we will be in trouble. Respectfully, I disagree withboth. These issues and the way we struggled with them have defined us since independence. We have discussedand debated them time and time again. How we deal with these challenges and issues going forward will continue

to define us as a people. We should not shy away from debating these matters in the future, and we should notpre-suppose that we can set in motion a single path that will solve all our problems for the future.

Madam, while I support the principles described and the intent of the White Paper to secure a future forSingapore and Singaporeans, I find the confidence with which the numbers are described unnerving, and I wouldlike to propose that we need a regular review along the way to see if the projections are accurate, and if we need

a course correction, perhaps in the middle of the next term of government may be an appropriate point.

I also have concerns about the Worker's Party’s proposal. I agree that it is likely to jam the brakes on oureconomy, to drive away jobs, to increase unemployment and to reduce opportunities for our young. But theyhave also committed the error of unswerving confidence in their calculations. There is no way that they canpredict the effects of their proposal with such accuracy. I think both sides of the House should be more

forthcoming with the uncertainty associated with the numbers that they have presented to the public.

Speaking on this, to expand on the analogy from my colleague, Dr Chia Shi-Lu, both sides of the House need toadmit that they are performing this surgery for the very first time.

Madam, this debate has seen a significant ideological shift on the part of the Government. Building ahead ofneed, slowing down the pace of economic growth, reducing the inflow of foreign labour. This is on top of recent

other ideologic changes, such as the institutionalisation of Workfare, making permanent GST vouchers. But,amazingly, in this House, in this week, we are not debating the fundamental ideology, we are not debating thefundamental positions, we are not debating where we want to go. As has been pointed out, repeatedly, largelywe all agree on what we all want.

Instead, if we strip away the rhetoric, if we look past rewriting slogans, look past the sound bites and throwaway

one-liners, we are debating what to be optimistic about and what to be pessimistic about. Antonio Gramsci, an

2/27/13

43/77

Italian writer, who was a communist jailed by the fascists, his most famous quote attributed to him is "Pessimismof the intellect and Optimism of the Will". 1n 1929, writing from prison, he went on to explain and expand upon

this, as that "The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and yet without becoming disillusioned".

The balance of heart and mind, hope and reality. If we look at the White Paper, the Government is pessimisticabout its ability to affect some things, perhaps the falling fertility rate, the ageing population certainly, the labourparticipation rate. Conversely, it is very optimistic about delivering infrastructure, restructuring the economy, andmaintaining a standard of living for all Singaporeans. The Opposition seems to be pessimistic about everything,

but that is the role of an Opposition in our democracy. If we examine their position closely, however, they dohave hope and they do have faith. The Opposition believes that the Government, the PAP Government, can turnaround the TFR. The Opposition has faith that MOM policies will be able to increase the labour forceparticipation rate. The Worker's Party believes that business will survive the restrictions on foreign labour. They

have hope and they have faith. They are pessimistic, however, that Singaporeans cannot adapt to the changingrealities of the world. They believe that Singaporeans cannot be happy in the Singapore of today. They cannotimagine a bright future for Singapore and Singaporeans.

We are a participatory democracy. This White Paper has sparked a national interest and citizens from everywalk of life have joined in. We are a thriving democracy with the security and freedom to debate such important

matters in peace and walk out of this Chamber as friends. That in itself is a remarkable achievement. This is thebright future that was imagined for Singapore many, many decades ago.

In this House, this week, we have been presented sometimes with a series of dichotomous choices. In therhetoric and the debate we have been asked to choose. Choose between survive as an Exceptional Nation orwither away into irrelevance. Choose between preserve our way of life or change beyond all recognition.

Choose between growth or happiness, hope or reality, heart or mind, us or them.

These are false choices. These are not the only way forward. Ours is an exceptional nation, a remarkable stateand an incredible city. Ours is a story told with disbelief, excitement and wonder, all round the word, a story thatis still being written. We should not be writing the last chapter now. We should choose to reject the false choices

on offer. We can do what needs to be done. We can do the right thing. We can discuss uncomfortable,unpopular issues and still build a consensus. We can choose to preserve our way of life and embrace change anddiversity. We can choose growth and happiness. We can embrace diversity and yet remain one united people.We can choose to have our eyes open to reality, our heads clear and our hearts full of hope. That is what has gotus here today and that is what will take us all forward together [Applause].

Time Limit for Deputy Prime Minister’s Speech

(Suspension of Standing Orders)

The Minister for Health (Mr Gan Kim Yong) : Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general

assent of Members present to move that the proceedings on item No. 1 in the Order Paper for today beexempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(3) to enable the Deputy Prime Minister who have spoken tospeak more than once in the debate.

Mdm Speaker : I give my consent. Does the Whip have the general assent of the hon. Members present to so

2/27/13

44/77

move?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

With the consent of Mdm Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, that nothwithstanding the Standing Orders, the proceedings on the item No. (1) In the Order Paperfor today be be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order 48(3) in respect of Deputy Prime Ministerspeaking more than once. – [Mr Gan Kim Yong].

A Sustainable Population for A DynamicSingapore

(Motion)

Debate resumed.

3.18 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister and Coordinating Minister for National Security and Minister for HomeAffairs (Mr Teo Chee Hean) : Mdm Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I would first like to thank DrJanil for his inspiring speech and also for drawing our attention to footnote 12. Our friends in the nursingprofession and the unions had also earlier brought the matter to my attention. I would like to inform Membersthat I intend to make a corrigendum to footnote 12 on page 40 of the Population White Paper, to delete this

segment: “Certain low-skilled jobs like personal services, retail and nursing are hard to offshore. They will still beneeded even as the economy upgrades.”

This classification of low-skilled jobs is not correct. I would like to apologise to those whose professions havebeen unintentionally misrepresented. I personally have the greatest respect for those in the nursing profession.This is a noble and caring profession which all of us and our loved ones depend on and appreciate. Thank you,

Madam.

3.19 pm

Mr Nicholas Fang (Nominated Member) : Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debateat a slightly late juncture. There are many tough acts to follow, and I was a bit concerned about not havingenough to cover that would be new. But the opportunity has also been presented for me to follow the debate

with great interest over this White Paper, both in the House and in the broader public domain. It has been aheated debate, high on emotion, with diverse voices being heard and difficult questions being asked.

This in itself has been heartening because, as we have seen from the issues raised, this White Paper is really notjust about population, but about the future of Singapore and our way of life.

Many of us feel deeply about the questions raised in the Paper, and I have many passionate discussions with

both Members of this House as well as of the public. I think this reflects the fact that, while the premise of much

2/27/13

45/77

of the Paper stems from hard facts and numbers and involves complicated formulae and policies, at heart, we aretalking about the soul of our country.

Children, ageing families, foreign neighbours, quality of life – these are things which touch an emotional chordwith all of us, and go far beyond political rhetoric and grandstanding. I for one am glad that we are addressing

these things at this time, because there are clear signs that we have reached an inflexion point in our growth as anation, with evolving social norms, economic challenges and shifting political trends becoming morecommonplace.

There have been disagreements about the need to place a hard economic growth target like gross domesticproduct (GDP) as the basis for projections about our population’s future. In a recent editorial by Bloomberg

published in the TODAY newspaper, the use of GDP as a measure of progress was questioned, given that itmeasures output, without any insight into the quality of that output. It can obscure growing inequality anddepletion of resources while focusing on a very narrow band of factors. But I think it is not a bad place to start.

History has shown that, as countries move along the path to becoming more developed, slower and slowinggrowth becomes increasingly inevitable. We have no natural resources to speak of. Our people are our true

assets. If that engine fizzles, we will face the very real possibility of slow or no growth in a few short decades.

Much of our debate so far has centered around the trade-off between growth and quality of life, and whether wecan stave off a crowded, congested future while maintaining a defined rate of economic growth. Worryingly,some Members have suggested that we can turn off economic growth or slow it down while population issuesare dealt with, and then turn it back on once society is ready. But economic growth, foreign investment and

confidence from companies and investors from abroad do not work that way. If we slip in terms of ourinternational competitiveness, we have many rivals ready and waiting in the wings to take our place.

Slow or no economic growth may sound acceptable when contrasted with overcrowding, an over-taxedinfrastructure or a greater number of foreign strangers living amongst us. But would we be acceptable it if it

means less jobs for our future generations, lower salaries and a bleak economic outlook for decades ahead? Isthis what we want for our future and for our future generations? I think most of us would say, no. There has beentalk that such scenarios are part of fear mongering. It is easy to say that when there still is growth.

How the calculations from which the estimates for population size in 2020 and 2030 are derived are not spelt outin great detail in the White Paper. These are understandably complex and complicated, but if there were attempts

to better explain the formulae involved, it might make for more informed public debate.

Instead, the figure that has caught the most attention is the 6.9 million that lies at the far end of the range ofestimates for population size in 2030.

The clarification that this number is the worst-case scenario is juxtaposed against the fact that it includesestimates of foreigners in Singapore -- something that the White Paper emphasises can actually be controlled by

policies.

The strains on the current infrastructure have made many questions whether we can in fact accommodate an up

to 30% increase in the number of people living here. But we have to bear in mind that much of this perspective isbased on our current understanding and impressions of the existing infrastructure. This will surely change and

hopefully improve by 2030.

2/27/13

46/77

A question that has also been raised is the impact a larger population, which potentially includes a largerproportion of permanent residents, will have on the concept of National Service (NS). With second-generation

PRs having to serve NS, and many of them not necessarily growing up in Singapore during their young and

formative years, what is the likely effect of having these individuals serving in NS in defense of a land which theymay feel not a significant tie or connection with?

Should they choose to return to their countries where they were born or grew up in in subsequent years, would

this have a significant impact on the force of operationally ready NSmen which plays a major role in Singapore’sdefence?

Mdm Speaker, I would like to turn now specifically to the issue of marriage and parenthood. As a single 30-something, I am part of the demographic that the White Paper addresses when it exhorts Singaporeans to settle

down and have children. Not that I am welcoming even more difficult questions in the Lunar New Year festivitiesthis weekend.

While the hard facts and data certainly struck a chord with me, I must say I felt something was missing, a

sentiment that many of my peers have echoed. Judging by views expressed in the media, both online and

traditional, it would appear that others share it as well, and that is that facts and figures can only take us so far.

Singaporeans are becoming more concerned with the quality of our growth, not just the quantity.

The White Paper acknowledges this when it echoes the Prime Minister’s National Day Rally last year in listingHope, Heart and Home as the three key pillars for a sustainable population. But I cannot help but wonder if this

would have resonated more effectively with more people if the transition from this to hard GDP targets and

economic estimates was made more gradually.

While critical to a nation’s growth, an overly obsessive focus on economics can obscure the importance of otherless tangible values and factors that can play a key role in the decision to settle down or to start families. When I

talk with my friends who are single like me, or married without children, the conversations of late have tended to

focus on quality of life, work-life balance, the need for a healthy, clean environment to raise children, a societythat exhibits and champions values that we all believe in.

At the same time, we also wonder if the Singapore of our children will be a place that we recognise, with distinct

features and characteristics that are unique to us, somewhere that we feel is home. Or will it be a place that

resembles the office of a multinational corporation – clean, efficient, with people from all over the world here tolive and work, but not necessarily to lay down roots, like Dubai, as one hon. Member mentioned, a city with no

soul but lots of spending money.

Will we be pushed to find ways to continue working past the current retirement age to shore up the dwindlingworkforce in a bid to ensure a strong Singaporean core? Or will we eventually be able to aspire to early

retirement so that we can enjoy time with our families, to travel a little bit and experience the broader world? Will

the Singapore of the future be a clean and healthy environment, with an emphasis on green sustainability, freshair, places of nature to be enjoyed by both young and old, that is uncongested and beautiful? Will it offer options

for leisure and entertainment, with art, culture, sports and music lending greater texture to the social fabric,

something that the White Paper does not address at length? Or will our drive for continued progress see theseaspects being swamped by an overwhelming focus on productivity and efficiency gains?

2/27/13

47/77

The White Paper states that Singaporeans share certain key values and aspirations, including meritocracy, a fairand just society, and respect for one another’s culture. But it does not spell out how we will ensure these values

continue to be transmitted to younger generations who are born and grow up in an environment where suchthings could be taken for granted, much less to foreigners who are new to our shores.

If the White Paper is anything to go by, it looks like financial incentives will again be the main levers that will beused to hopefully achieve the population growth deemed necessary for our long-term success. This does not

address some key issues, among which is the point of reproduction in the first place. Minister Grace Fu touchedon this earlier this week when she explored the reasons for having children. Besides for the sake of carrying on

our bloodline, or the security for parents that offspring can provide later in life, many people actually have

children to enjoy being in a family unit and to create a relationship with their young ones. One would assume thatmost of us would hope to give a good life to our children, one that is stable, secure and safe.

From a policy perspective, financial levers are probably preferred given that they are easier to design, plan and

implement, compared to the less tangible elements that go into the shaping of multi-faceted environments, repletewith values and value systems. But perhaps the greater value of the White Paper is that it has inspired us to look

at those intangibles and, hopefully, to find solutions that address them.

Mdm Speaker, we have not had much time to debate this White Paper – five days to consider measures which

reach 18 years into our future, and beyond. We have heard views from both the PAP and the Workers’ Partyand other Members, and we seem to be heading in roughly the same direction, with some differences in

numerical targets. Regardless of 5.9 million or 6 million or 6.9 million, I think the important thing is for us to keep

moving forward. As we do so, I would like to ask the Government to be responsive and flexible and to considera yearly review of the trends, and the effects of the measures laid out in the White Paper, so that we can know if

we are on track, or we need to adjust.

As interest shifts from the White Paper to red packets this weekend, I am sure the broader debate on this White

Paper will continue long after our debate in this House ends. I hope the Government will also continue to listen tothat discussion, as closely as we have this past week. The answer to the questions in the White Paper lie not just

with this House or anyone party, it lies with all of us, all Singaporeans. Looking back on our history and what wehave overcome, I am hopeful for the future. Perhaps, I am optimist but while many of my fellow Members have

supported the motion with heavy hearts, I choose to support the Motion and its amendments with a hopeful one

[Applause].

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 3.50pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.30 pm until 3.50 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.50 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

A SUSTAINABLE POPULATION FOR A DYNAMIC SINGAPORE

Debate resumed.

2/27/13

48/77

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development (Dr Mohamad Maliki

Bin Osman) : Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. I have the unenviable task of

being the last speaker for one of the toughest debates in this House. Toughest because it is dealing with thetension between balancing and winning the hearts and minds of Singaporeans, with regard to the complex

economic, demographic and social challenges.

As the last speaker, I had the opportunity to listen to what everyone else had to say, ponder about why certain

people said certain things, and where they were coming from. I saw how Singaporeans responded, be it throughface-to-face discussions, in dialogue sessions, in the forums and social media, and again, wonder why they

respond in those ways.

Through my experience as a social worker, I know that such reflection is an important part of the debate. Often,

the process and the dynamics are as important, if not more than, the outcomes.

When the White Paper was first released, the negative reactions came fast and furious. I recalled having verymixed feelings myself. Instinctively, I could understand why Singaporeans were up in arms. At the same time, it

was difficult to understand how the sincere desire of the Government to share with Singaporeans its assessmentand challenges that we will face and what we need to do, is being met with perceptions that the Government is all

out to bring in more foreigners and make Singaporeans strangers in their own land.

I remember thinking, why is this so? We are all Singaporeans! We are all here to serve in the best interest of

Singapore and Singaporeans. The employees that we want to ensure have and keep their jobs, areSingaporeans. The employers, many of whom are owners of SMEs, are Singaporeans. The families we want to

support are Singaporeans. Why would people think that the Government would propose solutions that are

detrimental to Singaporeans? It just does not make sense.

If we can put the emotions aside for a while, what is this debate about? Is this debate about planning for ourfuture? Yes. Is it necessary to do so? Yes, as we expect this to be the preoccupation of any responsible

Government. Who are we planning this future for? Singaporeans. It has to be! Although some segments aresaying it is not meant for Singaporeans. I wonder why. Is it about ensuring that our children continue to enjoy a

high quality of life in 20 years time? Definitely! As parents, we want the best for our children. Is it about making

Singaporeans lose their jobs to foreigners? No! Again, why would a responsible Government want to do that?

It is about ensuring Singaporeans in 2030 continue to have jobs, not just jobs, but jobs that meet theiraspirations. How can this happen? We need to make sure there is sustainable growth to meet the aspirations of

our young generation.

And then there was this whole question why discuss such a sensitive topic that the Government knows will only

raise the emotional and political temperatures? The Government could have chosen to be short sighted and justfocus on one election cycle at a time, as in many other countries. Why not? It is logical and makes sense. Why

risk political capital and incur more unhappiness to talk about such hot topics when all it needs to do is just to

focus on the here and now.

But as I sat listening to such arguments, it struck me that whichever positions we all started out with, we stuck bythem. We dug in, we made impassioned arguments. So after five days of debate with almost every member of

this House speaking, have we covered all the different viewpoints? To a large extent, I think we have. But I stillwonder, what is missing in our effort in connecting with Singaporeans? It is a process we must continue to be

2/27/13

49/77

mindful of, otherwise, we will always struggle to understand why good meaning intentions are often easily

misunderstood.

Madam, I can understand the sentiments of Singaporeans. I share many of the concerns Singaporeans that have

been articulated, especially their concern about over crowdedness and with more foreigners competing for jobsand space.

At the same time, I also hear, quite loudly, the cries of our Singaporean businessmen on their concerns about

their own business survivability. As a Member of Parliament whose ward comprises 75% private estate dwellers,

I have met many of my Singaporean residents who are business owners. Recently, I organised a dialog sessionas part of the “our Singapore Conversation” series with these SME owners, who are my residents, all of whom

are Singaporeans, and many raise these manpower issues, seeking MOM’s understanding on their need forforeign workforce to ensure their business survive.

Yes, we should encourage them to restructure. We should support them more to innovate and improve the

productivity of their local workers. One young restaurant owner almost came to tears when she came to see me

one day saying she has to close her restaurant for a couple of weeks as she could not get approval for herforeign staff application. I felt sorry for her. I know how much she aspires to make her dream come true.

She is a Singaporean who has a dream and is pursuing that dream. In that, she hopes for support, for the

Government agency to understand her struggle to employ Singaporeans. She was prepared to pay reasonable

wages. She advertised for weeks. She is one of many SME owners whom I have met and they share the samestruggles.

At this point, it is interesting to note the differing mental models of the two groups. For many businesses, they

honestly believe that they have tried to be as productive and have tried to recruit Singaporeans but to no avail,

and they honestly believe that foreign workers are their only solution.

But Singaporeans have been shouldering the stresses and burdens of an increased population for the last 5 to10years. Many will ask, “Where is the promise of productivity where businesses will do more with less? And why

must Singaporeans be the ones who must continue to face the burden of an even larger population, without beingconvinced that all else has been attempted and tried to no avail?”

More importantly, Madam, the tensions above reflects a more fundamental challenge. The Government seems tobe the arbiter of the interests of all its citizens – the business owners, the employees. It is expected to hear both

parties and try to please. Can the Government instead, facilitate the conversation between them?

Have the businesses informed Singaporeans what they have done, or are doing to restructure, to put in placenew systems that will enhance work processes and productivity, that the gains from these will go to

Singaporeans, that their HR practices or policies favour all efforts at employing Singaporeans and the challenges

they face in doing so?

These are ingredients of the new social compact not just between the Government and Singaporeans, but alsoamong Singaporeans, taking ownership of this very important aspect of this debate. I think we all agree that we

cannot not do with supplementary foreign workforce. The question is how much should we depend on? That is

why one of our key answers is to increase our TFR.

2/27/13

50/77

Some have argued that we have been barking up the wrong tree – that giving more bonuses will not reverse the

TFR. I think we can agree that bonuses alone are not sufficient. The Government has been hearing the feedback– thus the recently announced enhancement to the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package certainly goes

beyond the bonuses – making homes available and affordable early, better social infrastructure for families etc.

Madam, are these measures enough to reverse the TFR? Can we do more? Herein lies the tension – what should

Singaporeans do? Is the enhanced M&P Package attractive enough to tip the balance and reverse the trend?

When the White Paper was first released, I had a chance to speak to many young couples. To my surprise, acommon reaction to the White paper was that they will not have more children as they are concerned over the

pressures and uncertainties of the Singapore of 2030, with its larger numbers and higher congestion. They were

afraid they cannot give the best for their children. They were not prepared to subject their children to thepressures and stressors of living in a competitive society like Singapore. They worry that their children cannot

afford to buy their own homes when they grow up. It is almost as if the M&P Package announced just a weekbefore had already lost its impact even before it was given a chance to find its footing.

Madam, what should be our social compact with our young Singaporean couples? Do we as a society see thisissue as an issue of our own survival, as our earlier generation did following the early post independence years?

And do we have the tenacity to overcome the tension of almost becoming a minority in our own homeland? Canour citizens see child bearing as a duty to ensure the survivability of Singapore and the sustenance of the

Singaporean core? Or is this the wrong question to ask?

Interestingly, I was told that there is a school of thought circulating out there, supported by research done

elsewhere that suggests that TFR may be inversely proportional to population density. I am not familiar with theresearch in this area, but this seems to correlate with the reactions of the young couples I have met who are

concerned about having more children. Having emerged from the academia, I have always appreciated the

importance of keeping our minds open. When evidence of such research is thrown up in the midst of ourdiscussion of such sensitive issues, how do we respond? Do we see these as disruptive derailers to be cast

aside?

Or, are we prepared to look at alternative data and scrutinise the evidence, so that we are clear where we areheading? Because if the research on TFR and population density were true, what might be its implications on our

strategies to increase TFR while at the same time bringing in more foreign workers to supplement the local

workforce? Perhaps it would be good for the NPTD to review the research to provide a more comprehensiveunderstanding of how else we can turn around the TFR tide.

Madam, we have spent the last five days debating one of the most sensitive issues affecting Singaporeans.

Beyond the rhetoric, beyond the rationalisation, beyond the economic numbers, beyond the 5.9 million or 6.9

million – Singaporeans ask – is this really for me? Have you listened to me? Can I be certain that this will makemy life and my children’s life better in 20 years’ time?

Have we convinced Singaporeans? Even if we have not fully, I hope we would have at least convinced

Singaporeans that we will continue to improve on our efforts at connecting and communicating with them, closing

the gap and seeing it in their perspective. At least we would have convinced Singaporeans that the Government ishonest and prepared to present the bitter realities and hard truths – that the Government is not afraid to admit

previous shortcomings and is resolute to overcome and not repeat them.

2/27/13

51/77

Madam, thus the motion before us is not just about endorsing the White Paper on Population. The motion asks

that the House supports the maintenance of a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to getmarried and have children, supplemented by a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population

from shrinking; and that the House recognises that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purposes

of land use and infrastructure planning, and not a population target.

The amended motion calls on the Government to also place priority on resolving current strains on theinfrastructure, particularly in transport; this is critical as many Singaporeans want to see short-term results of what

the Government has promised.

It also asks that the Government plan, invest in, and implement infrastructure development ahead of demand.

This is so that we have sufficient buffers and not be caught off guard again. More specifically, the amendedmotion before us also asks the Government to ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better

job opportunities and salaries, flow to Singaporeans as they should; and that the Government 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.

Madam, the motion sets an agenda and dictates the deliverables for the Government both in the short and longer

term. It reminds the Government if Singaporeans are to trust us with their future, we must convince them withimmediate and medium-term results.

W we must evolve in our ways of engaging so that the processes and dynamics are as important as objectives

and outcomes. Indeed, the social compact moving forward is about consensus building and trust. It is more than

telling Singaporeans “we know best” or “trust us”. I also hope that Singaporeans will be fair to the Government.Despite the shortcomings, this is the Government that has taken us through thick and thin. It is a Government that

truly cares for Singaporeans – young and old, rich and poor.

At the end of the day, Madam, I hope Singaporeans will see the sincerity that is in every one of us and everything

that we do, we do with the best intention of making life better for all Singaporeans – People, Businesses andGovernment. That is a promise that I hope all of us will strive towards.

Time Limit for Prime Minister’s and DeputyPrime Minister’s Speeches

(Suspension of Standing Orders)

Mr Gan Kim Yong : Mdm Speaker, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present tomove that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No.

48(8) to remove the time limit in respect of the Prime Minister’s speech and the Deputy Prime Minister’s reply.

Mdm Speaker : I give my consent. Does the Whip have the general assent of the hon. Members present to so

move?

Hon. Members indicated assent.

2/27/13

52/77

With the consent of Mdm Speaker and the general assent of Members present, question put, and agreed to.

Resolved, that the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order

48(8) in respect of the Prime Minister’s speech and the Deputy Prime Minister’s reply. – [Mr Gan Kim Yong].

A Sustainable Population for A DynamicSingapore

(Motion)

Debate resumed.

4.08 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Lee Hsien Loong) : Mdm Speaker, in Malay.

(In Malay): This Debate is ultimately about our long-term future. Our shared goal is to sustain the Singaporestory into future generations, and strengthen our Singapore core.

Our most important priority is to encourage Singaporeans to marry and have more babies. None of our ethnic

groups are replacing ourselves, even the Malays. We hope you will take advantage of the latest Marriage &Parenthood package and have more babies.

We are supplementing our population with an inflow of foreigners. But we are slowing down the numbers, to apace that we can manage more easily. We will preserve the Singapore character of our society. In particular, we

will maintain the ethnic balance in our citizen population. The proportion of Malays in the citizen population willnot change, even over the longer term. We will not change it.

Singaporeans will always be at the heart of all we do. That is our responsibility. We will continue to give priorities

to Singaporeans, including Malay Singaporeans, in all our policies. Meritocracy will ensure our people succeed

because of their abilities, but we will continue to take care of those who need help to get back on their feet or toreach the same starting point in life. By working together, we will create more opportunities for all communities

and we will strengthen our multi-racial and cohesive community.

Our future depends on strengthening our Singapore spirit – the will to survive, the desire to succeed and the

commitment to improve our lives. I hope the Malay community will support our population policy and work withus to build a brighter future for Singaporeans together.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong : Mdm Speaker, may I now speak in Mandarin.

Mdm Speaker : Yes, please.

Mr Lee Hsien Loong (In Mandarin): Mdm Speaker, since the Population White Paper was released last

week, there has been a lot of heated debate within and outside this House. The Government knows this White

Paper is not popular. Many people had voiced their dissatisfaction. The common view is that the Government

2/27/13

53/77

should try to solve the more pressing and immediate problems first, rather than long-term problems. It should getthe problems before us out of the way before setting its sights on the long-term ones.

Many people also said that Singapore is already very crowded, and asked why the Government still wanted toincrease its population? I understand why people feel this way.

Today, I want to explain the objectives and intent of this White Paper – why we want to do this, why we want to

do an unpopular thing. First, let me clarify again that 6.9 million is not a target. This number is a planningparameter to help us plan for future infrastructure. When we expand our MRT network, hospitals, public

housing, parks and other amenities, we use this number as a reference. We want to prepare for more, to plan for

the just-in-case. And if we do not have the need, at least we have a fallback. We do not plan to increase thepopulation to 6.9 million. This is not our intent.

The Government’s reason for proposing this White Paper was to spur Singaporeans to look into the long term

and start implementing some solutions. We are facing problems such as an ageing population and low birth rate,

which would bring about negative consequences. If we do not start tackling these problems now, our populationwould dwindle and our economy would lose its vitality. I feel that we should not leave this problem to the next

Government to solve because that would be irresponsible.

Some Singaporeans feel that we should slow down the pace of life and strive for a better life instead of being too

concerned with economic growth. I agree that we should not focus only on economic progress and neglect otherimportant aspects of life such as building a better living environment, narrowing the income gap and building a

more harmonious society. In fact, we are already doing so. We have deliberately slowed down the influx offoreigners, which will slow our economic growth. We have accepted slower growth so that we can achieve our

larger objectives. But the economy is not like a tap which we can adjust to vary the speed of growth. Policies

which are too tight may stall the economy; or we might overheat the economy and cause bubbles to form. Manycountries face this problem. And an open economy like Singapore would be especially vulnerable. If we look at

other countries, we will find that countries which have slower economic growth are usually not the happiest, mostunited or harmonious countries. The experience of the Western economies shows that a slow-growth economy

tends to have higher unemployment, which affects young people the most, with youth unemployment reaching

30% or even 50%. We have seen this happening in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal. There are many otherexamples.

This White Paper proposes a compromise between economic growth and giving Singaporeans a high quality of

life. Our solution is two-pronged: to encourage more births and raise productivity, and at the same time, bring in

an appropriate number of immigrants and foreign workers. Actually this is a three-pronged approach. A specificsuggestion in the White Paper is to reduce the influx of foreign workers from now to 2020. This is in line with

public expectations and would help reduce congestion and the sense of unease. At the same time, it will also helpus maintain economic stability and create good job opportunities. From 2020 to 2030, which is very far from

now, the picture is less clear. Nevertheless, we will further tighten the influx of foreign workers. We will monitor

and review the actual situation and put down more specific policies then.

Therefore, we are introducing the White Paper to look into the long-term interests of Singaporeans. We are notpursuing economic growth blindly, neither are we are blindly growing the population. These are the means and

not the end. Our eventual objective is to ensure that this generation and our future generations can continue tolive happily and peacefully on this island. Every generation can continue to do well and lead better lives than the

preceding one.

2/27/13

54/77

I know that Singaporeans hope that we can first solve the more pressing and immediate problems. I would liketo assure Singaporeans that the Government is already doing our best to tackle various bread-and-butter issues.

These measures are already being implemented. I am sure that you will see the results soon. HDB has already

gone full steam on building more flats and we will keep prices of new flats affordable. The rail network woulddouble by 2030, and more trips will run during the peak hours to make it more convenient for everyone to travel

to and from work and play. Public transport will be more convenient everywhere you go. The Government willprovide more training opportunities for workers to increase their productivity and wages. We will strengthen our

social safety net and help the less privileged, building on our important first step in our Budget last year.

However, when we deal with our more immediate problems, we cannot ignore our long-term concerns. And one

of our most important longer-term concerns is the population issue. It is not some abstract or theoretical concept.We are worried about it because we are worried for Singaporeans. Which group of Singaporeans are we

worried about?

First, we are worried about our elderly. It is obvious that the baby boomers, those born after the Second World

War, which include me and some of my fellow Cabinet Ministers, are entering old age. In the next 20 to 30years, we will all be retired and become retirees and senior citizens. We will need to be taken care of. We hope

to lead a peaceful, stable and healthy life. This is a major shift in our demographic profile. How to take care ofthis group of Singaporeans is a big challenge. In other words, how Singaporeans of today can take care of old

Singaporeans 30 years from now is a very big issue. Of course, we can talk about this later but time waits for no

man. I know that many Singaporeans are filial and willing to take care of their elderly parents. But I also knowthat this is not going to be easy, especially when their parents are very sick, or when they have few siblings to

share the load, or when their parents are very old and immobile. We all know that being filial is a child’s duty, butit is easier said than done. They have parents and children to take care of. They have heavy burdens, both

mentally and financially. One way to help them is to bring in foreign workers, particularly domestic helpers and

nurses.

The other group I am worried about are the low-income earners. The Government is helping them to increasetheir income because they are facing the most pressure from competition. And the most practical way is to

increase their skills and employability. However, they need jobs and companies to hire them. If we allow

companies to have foreigners as part of their workforce, it may help these companies lower business costs andmaintain competitiveness, so that they can continue to employ Singaporean workers. In this way, lower-income

workers can be protected and cushioned from the impact of globalisation. Minister Lim Swee Say pointed outyesterday that if companies are affected, our workers would ultimately be the ones who suffer. These are words

from the leader of the union movement and he knows the real situation. Many Singaporeans either work in SMEs

or are owners of SMEs. Our SMEs need time to adapt, upgrade and expand into new markets. If they cannotsurvive because of a shortage of labour, the first to be affected would be low-wage Singaporean workers.

Therefore, when we think of the interests of Singaporeans and try to help them solve their problems, we not onlyhave to deal with the direct issues but also need to consider the indirect factors and economic issues. And foreign

labour is one of these factors.

Besides elderly and low-income Singaporeans, we also have to think about the prospects for younger

Singaporeans. We have to keep our economy vibrant so that younger Singaporeans can fulfil their potential.Without economic growth and opportunities, younger Singaporeans may just decide to migrate to other places,

and leave behind the elderly folks here to take care of themselves.

2/27/13

55/77

Therefore, because we are worried about the future for elderly Singaporeans, younger Singaporeans and low-income Singaporeans, we need to be very careful when dealing with immigration and foreign worker issues.

When we bring in new immigrants, we are concerned about whether they can integrate into our society.Singapore today is very different from our pre-independence days. Back then, we were not yet a country. Since

independence, because we have gone through the trials and tribulations during the colonial period, the merger

and the early years of independence, our society has become increasingly mature. The different races havegradually developed a sense of identity, with unique social norms and values. Under such circumstances, it is

more difficult for new immigrants to integrate into our society. As such, the Government will have to double ourefforts to help these new immigrants adapt to our society, and ensure that Singaporeans can live harmoniously

together with them and integrate the new immigrants as part of us. But at the same time, the Government will also

control the number of new immigrants to ensure that it does not go beyond what we can accommodate. Mr LowThia Khiang said that only Singaporeans who are born and bred here can make up the strong Singapore core.

Foreign immigrants, unlike us, cannot form the Singapore core. I do not agree with this. I think that this is verypessimistic and narrow-minded thinking. We have all heard of this classical Chinese saying: “The ocean admits all

rivers, thus achieving greatness”. Chinese wisdom accumulated over thousands of years has taught us that

accepting talent from all over the world is the way to build a strong nation. No matter which era we live in, nomatter where we live, foreign immigrants, as long as they have the determination, can integrate into the society

they migrate to and make contributions. We will consider carefully the number we would take in and how we

would bring them in; we will make our policies more comprehensive, but our principles remain steadfast. Ibelieve that in time to come, these people can become “true-blue Singaporeans” as well.

On the whole, this White Paper discusses long-term issues and explores solutions to tackle these problems.

The White Paper proposes a basic blueprint and solution so that we can plan for the long-term, particularly in

terms of infrastructure development.

The overarching principle in our population strategy is very clear. The Government will always put Singaporeans

first. Singaporeans will continue to make up the majority of the population here and form the strong Singaporecore. All along, the Government has given differentiated treatment to citizens and non-citizens. Singaporeans

enjoy preferential treatment in education, housing and healthcare so that they can enjoy the fruits of our economicgrowth. In recent years, the Government has sent a clearer signal by further differentiating the benefits of citizens

and non-citizens. This is necessary and the right thing to do, as Singapore citizens are the owners of this society

and the Government is elected by Singaporeans and has to be accountable to Singaporeans. However,Singapore’s success cannot rely on the Government alone. Singaporeans need to be the mainstay of our society.

They need to strive for the best and be the driving force for the progress of the country and themselves; theycannot be mere passengers. Singaporeans also need to help one another and move forward together as a nation.

The Population White Paper is built on this principle. It is drafted to safeguard the interests of this generation and

future generations of Singaporeans, to ensure that Singapore continues to develop steadily and become an evenbetter home for all Singaporeans. The White Paper has set out the various challenges we are likely to face, as

well as the policies and solutions to tackle these challenges. But a White Paper cannot solve every problem.

Therefore, I hope that Singaporeans will continue to discuss these issues, so that the Government can continue toimprove on our policies and better prepare Singapore for its future.

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I support the amended motion. The White Paper and the debate are the

culmination of a year-long process. We have consulted stakeholders; we have published Occasional and IssuesPapers; we have engaged many Singaporeans; we have received feedback from thousands of people and

2/27/13

56/77

distilled all these strands into the White Paper; laid out the issues comprehensively, and what we need to do to

address these issues.

The White Paper has triggered some strong reactions which MPs have reflected in this House. Some are upset

that we are talking about long-term problems before solving immediate issues. Many fear that the way we aregoing, Singapore will no longer be Singaporean that we will be overwhelmed by immigrants and foreigners.

Many MPs raised this. Many, many people have objected to the figure of 6.9 million and hence, the passionate

and difficult debate in this House this week.

Why has the Government introduced this White Paper now, or even introduce this White Paper at all, knowingthat population and immigration is such a difficult and unpopular subject? Because I know that we – all

Singaporeans – face a very difficult problem together that is growing day by day. As your Government, it is our

duty to share this problem with you.

We are producing too few babies, our society is ageing, and if we do nothing our population will soon startshrinking like Japan’s. What does that mean for all of us? What must we do about it – and when I say we, I do

not just the Government, I mean also individuals, groups, companies, SMEs – how do we prepare ourselves,how do we try to avert some of the problems which we can see coming?

We have to make choices, make adjustments, accept trade-offs which will fundamentally impact our country, oursociety, our children, our lives. For example, do we allow SMEs more foreign workers to grow their businesses,

or choke them off and force them to upgrade or die? Do we let in more construction workers to build moreHDB flats and MRT lines faster, or do we cap the number of construction workers and make Singaporeans wait

longer for HDB flats and MRT trains?

So, the discussions last year, and so the White Paper and this debate, so that we are upfront with Singaporeans

and we can face our challenges together. It would have been easy for me to “kick the can down the road” -- toborrow a phrase from the Workers’ Party -- and leave the problem to a future Government or to a future Prime

Minister, or to propose a bogus solution which does not really solve the problem, but buys you some politicaltime. For example, declare that we are “setting KPIs for our TFR”. And then by the time you find out that

nothing has happened, well, perhaps the awkward moment has passed. But it would be irresponsible for me to

do so and I hope Singaporeans understand why after considering this carefully, we have decided to bring thematter out into the open and discuss this sincerely, openly, and frankly, even if you may not agree with the

proposals or the solutions which we have put out.

Our purpose is to do the best for Singaporeans. Singaporeans are at the centre of all our plans and everything

which we do is to improve Singaporeans’ well-being, their security and welfare. And everything else -- whetherit is economic growth, whether it is population policies, whether it is your housing, your trains -- those are means

to this end.

This White Paper is not just a discussion of a difficult problem. It is really an affirmation of faith in Singapore’s

future. Believe that Singapore has a future which is worth building, protecting, striving for. Believe that Singaporecan grow from strength to strength and the next generation deserves to live better lives than this generation. All

human beings have this desire to build on what you have inherited, to pass on to your children something betterthan what you have. I think Singaporeans share this deep human desire. They want to do this individually in their

families; they want to do it in their work; we want to do it collectively as a society. We want tomorrow to be

better than today, otherwise why are we striving? And to make tomorrow better than today, we have to get our

2/27/13

57/77

population policies right, so that we give ourselves the best chance of success.

This is a long-term issue. Tomorrow against today, it is a small difference. Next year versus this year, it is

noticeable. Ten years from now, compared to today, the trends have built up and accumulated; another 10

years, they may become irreversible. Therefore, we cannot wait till the convenient moment. We have to workhard to address the problems.

To address the long-term problems at the same time as we are addressing the current problems which

preoccupies Singaporeans, whether it is housing: aggressively building HDB flats, as Minister Khaw Boon Wan

has tirelessly been explaining and doing; whether it is transport: accelerating the construction of train lines,bringing in more bus services, and spreading out peak hours as Minister Lui Tuck Yew has also tirelessly been

doing; whether it is job competition -- reducing our reliance on non-Singaporeans, helping our workers toupgrade, ensuring fair treatment for citizens as Acting Minister Mr Tan Chuan-Jin has been working at and

explaining to you; or tackling the cost of living and social safety nets for our lower income groups especially --

through many schemes , whether it is Workfare, ComCare and other schemes also to help not so low incomegroups, but people who may have fallen into difficulties temporarily and who have exceptional circumstances

who deserves support. Like families who need to hire foreign domestic workers to look after bedridden seniors.We have schemes, we have arrangements and we are developing more ways of doing these things. Progressively

step-by-step, whether it is houses, whether it is trains, whether it is cost of living, we are determined to improve

things progressively.

In parallel, we have to deal with this population issue. This is a multi-faceted problem. First, it is a problem ofnumbers: How many babies are born, how many people immigrate, how many people emigrate, how many

foreign workers we need, what is our TFR? At that level, it is an exercise in spreadsheets and arithmetic.

Anybody can do the sums. Does not mean anybody can make the sums work and solve the problem. But that isonly one aspect of our population problem.

Another aspect is identity. Many MPs have spoken about it. I think just now Asst Prof Eugene Tan was one of

them. Who are we? To our children, to immigrants, to people who are working here, people who are visitinghere, who are Singaporeans? It is more complicated for us because we are a cosmopolitan city -- unlike say

Japan or China -- where the population all look the same, speak the same language, and it is quite clear if you

are Japanese, you are Japanese. But in Singapore, who are you? We have to be open, we have to be varied, wehave to have all sorts of people here. At the same time, we are not just a city – we are not just like New York or

London. We are a nation. So we need both that vibrancy and openness, but also the sense of identity and the

sense of belonging among citizens that we are Singaporeans together. That is a very difficult combination tocreate – to be cohesive without being close, to identify with one another and not be xenophobic; to be open and

yet not be diluted and dissolve. But that is our karma and we have to keep a balance between the two.

The third aspect of the population issue is the economy: How do we keep thriving and prospering? I almosthesitate to make this argument because everybody in the Chamber -- or many people in this Chamber -- and

many people outside too have taken the view that economics is not so important and that we have over-

emphasised economics as a Government. I think I should make my position quite clear. We are not pursuinggrowth at all costs. We are trying to juggle many different objectives including population, including cohesion,

including our social tensions. And we are trading off -- reducing immigration, reducing foreign worker inflows,slowing down the economy significantly so as to deal with these tensions and pressures, and so as to address

other issues which we want, whether it is quality of life, whether it is income equality, whether it is the

2/27/13

58/77

environment.

We accept this because we want the growth to be sustainable, we want high quality growth and we want

workers and families to benefit. Finally, it is for Singaporeans. Growth is not for its own sake. But growth is not

unimportant. We can only afford to say that it is not, does not matter because we have already got it. If we didnot have it, we would not be so blase. You need growth to improve education and healthcare, to build better

homes and towns, to invest in reliable and convenient public transport. If we do not have the resources, you willnot have the means and you will not have that quality of life.

We also need growth to improve incomes and I say this advisedly, incomes are important. If you are in the top

five, 10 per cent of the population, you may say, well, I have enough, I manage, I can live within my means. If

you are at the bottom 10% or 20% of the population, or even the medium Singaporeans – not poor, not rich – Ithink it would be patronising and cavalier for us to say they do not need more; growth is unimportant. It is

important for us to raise income of the low-income Singaporeans. It is important that we are able to have growthwhich enables a broad mass of Singaporeans to improve their lives. When people say that the cost of living is

high, I want to help with cost of living. Really the best solution is if your incomes can go up, and you have more

means to afford the things that you want, then you will be under less pressure. But for the incomes to go up,unless the economy grows, I must rob Peter to pay Paul. Somebody has to volunteer, take the money from me,

give it to them. It is not a sustainable solution.

Our experience has shown that in fact when the economy is growing, the low-income Singaporeans benefit; their

incomes go up. When the economy crashes or slows down, it is the low-income Singaporeans whose salariesstagnate. And at the top, quite often, incomes continue to rise. It is a problem with us; it is a problem with many

countries. And so, that is why, while although we have many objectives and we are trading off, growth stillcounts, together with sense of belonging and nationhood, together with work-life balance, together with family-

friendly environment. One of the things we must not forget is we need to make a living for ourselves.

So when I think of population and the future, we are trying to look at it from different perspectives. But finally,

you are trying to look at it from the angle of how does it affect Singaporeans? And which Singaporeans are goingto be affected when you are talking about population? I think there are three groups which I specifically like to

mention.

First, the older people. Older Singaporeans, not just today’s old people which you can see and are no so few

already, but tomorrow’s Singaporeans. That means some of us who are here today who still consider ourselvesapproaching middle age, but in 18 years’ time, 2030, we will say, well, this is the new 50. And that is a very big

group of Singaporeans. The numbers are growing rapidly because we are the Baby Boomers, the bulge of kidsborne after the Second World War. I can see this on the ground. All MPs can see this on the ground. In Teck

Ghee, when I first became an MP, I used to attend a lot of baby shows. Today, there are still baby shows once

in a while, but far more senior citizen activities. Just last weekend, I opened a Seniors Activity Centre – verypopular, lots of old folks playing bingo, exercising, socialising, and asking for more facilities. That is the face of

Singapore tomorrow. What do we do with it?

Today, there are six working citizens supporting one senior citizen. By 2030, without immigration -- if we freeze

everything and just depend on the citizens -- it is going to be 2:1. That means the burden, the responsibility oneach working-age person is going to triple. We have to look after the seniors. Yes, they have their CPF. That is

very helpful. Yes, the Government is there with HDB schemes and with Medisave, Medifund Silver and with allsorts of schemes, to help the senior citizens look after themselves. But finally, we also need an economy which

2/27/13

59/77

works; we also need the young people to provide the services to look after them.

As an MP, I see many old folks who have no children or whose children are not supporting them, for one reason

or another. They come to me and they ask me for help. And I say well, “What about your family?” They say myfamily – so many reasons – “I have lost touch with them or you know young people these days”. Sometimes, a

family is helping, the family comes to see us and they do not have a very easy time because they have aged

parents, they have young children and they are trying hard to be filial sons and daughters. Not so easy lookingafter parents, children and work; sometimes, looking after siblings who have special needs -- with healthcare

expenses, caregivers feeling emotional stress.

We are doing a great deal to help them with Medifund Silver, active ageing programmes, barrier-free

neighbourhoods, all the many schemes which we are coordinating through all of different ministries. But that istoday’s 6:1 support ratio. When it goes to two young people to one, I think the pressures on the families and on

the society are going to be much higher.

It is easy to say, we stop immigration, we stop foreign workers coming in, as I think Mr Chen Show Mao did.Ageing is a triumph of development. But is it so simple? We will all get old one day and we will need healthcare

and support one day, hopefully, later rather than earlier. But can we solve this problem with re-employed retirees

becoming caregivers in old folks’ homes? Can one child look after two elderly parents, whether financially orphysically? Is it sustainable? Is it fair? So, that is the first group I worry about when looking at their demographic

trends.

The second group is the low-income Singaporeans. They aspire to a higher income and to a better life, as do all

of us. And the Government is also doing our best to help them through better pay and upgraded skills, throughWorkfare and all our productivity schemes; through vouchers -- GST Vouchers and U-Save and many other

schemes to cope with the cost of living; through ComCare, Medifund to provide for families and children.

But the best way to help them is to create opportunities for them – opportunities for better jobs, opportunities forearning more, and opportunities to live dignified and fulfilling lives. And they need good jobs. They do not want

handouts, in fact. They prefer to stand on their own feet, learn a new skill and provide for themselves as Mr

Zainal Sapari and Mr Zainudin Nordin reminded us. But to do this, we have to be able to have a pie which isexpanding and the low-income people cannot be burdened heavily looking after senior citizens and old folks at

home.

Low-wage workers do fear competition from foreigners, but they also benefit from a controlled inflow of foreign

workers because with a controlled inflow, the company has a mix, the foreign worker lowers their costs, thecompany is viable, it hires the Singaporeans. Otherwise, if they close, it is not the foreign worker who has the

problem. He goes home but it is the Singaporean who has lost its job, and the employer, the SME boss, who haslost his business, as Mr Inderjit Singh vividly reminded the House.

So, that is the second group we worry about. The third group are young Singaporeans -- young today andyoung, not yet born because we have a responsibility to the Singaporeans to be born. They have many different

aspirations. You have heard some of them, as the MPs have spoken over the last few days, Mr S Iswaran talkedabout Khoo Xue Ni, who wants to become a forensic pathologist; Ms Grace Fu talked about Joelle Ng who

wants to be a cartoonist; Mr Baey Yam Keng talked about hawker-preneurs, who have a vision, a dream and a

passion.

2/27/13

60/77

And you see many others like them and TODAY published a population supplement last year, talking about

people in law, in social service, people who want to grow their hearts and souls, actualise themselves. And I seethem in my constituency – young people from Nanyang Polytechnic, come to help me do community work –

clean up, paint, tidy up rental flats. They do not have to do it. It is community engagement. They get satisfactionand I think the people who are helped, are very, very pleased. I see other young people. I was at Zion Riverside

Hawker Centre one evening, and ran into a bunch of them – turned out to be Singapore University of

Technology and Design (SUTD) students – full of life. They were from the Rotaract Club on an orientation andbonding camp; passionate about their education, passionate about what they are going to do next in Singapore,

looking forward to boundless opportunities. When you are young, all possibilities are opened and it is amarvellous feeling. We have a responsibility to them, to make sure they have those opportunities in Singapore.

They want fulfilling, well-paying jobs that is not so surprising. But they also would like an exciting, dynamic city,space to pursue diverse interests and the opportunity to go and change Singapore and change the world. We

have invested heavily in them -- developing their potential, especially through education, so they can thrive inmany places, not just in Singapore. We have educated them, so many of them are going to come out as PMETs

(Professionals, Managers, Executives, Technical staff). Educating them as PMETs is not so hard. Finding PMET

jobs for them to do, to match their education, is not so easy. And in many countries, people come out as PMETsand end up in unskilled jobs because the jobs are not there. It happens in China, in Europe, in America.

We are going to have two-thirds of our young people, PMETs, who will be their complement working with

them. Some of them will be either Singaporeans but if we just go on that balance, it is not going to work. Youhave to complement them with others who can work with them and that means foreign workers to do jobs,

whether it is construction, whether it is as a domestic maid, whether it is in manufacturing, jobs where we do not

have Singaporeans and jobs where Singaporeans have graduated out of. So, we need to do this forSingaporeans’ future, for the young people’s future. To have a city which have opportunities and buzz, to be

forward-looking and to be on the move.

We have Singaporeans all over the world. I think from the last number, it is about 200,000, at our best estimate,

who are overseas. Many of them are children of parents who are still in Singapore. If you ask around, lookaround your constituencies, your grassroots, your friends, you will know that many of them have got children

living, working and studying overseas. They are part of our global community. It is fine. But if Singapore sputters,stagnates, and if we become a giant retirement home, then our young, with nothing to look forward to here, they

will move, as Mr Arthur Fong has pointed out. And with two old folks, there will be an empty nest at home.

That has happened in many countries where the opportunities are not there, people have moved. The Irish used

to have that happened to them. The Greeks have many young people who have gone all over Europe. I think itwill be very sad if that happens to Singapore. So, for the sake of the young, for the sake of their futures, we have

to think what sort of Singapore we want to see beyond the immediate, beyond the here and now.

Getting our population policy right is important to looking after these longer term needs of Singaporeans. Having

resources; having caregivers to help the elderly; uplifting the low-income, who are the hardest hit by a stagnation;creating opportunities and hope for our young, so that they are anchored here. In other words, all these

discussions are about our people, our children, our future.

That is why we have to deal with immediate problems, infrastructure and so on, and the long-term population

issues together, to create the most promising future for Singaporeans.

2/27/13

61/77

The motion as amended by Mr Liang Eng Hwa makes this quite clear, what it is we are asking Parliament todecide. It sets the objective, to maintain a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get

married and have children, and to supplement this with a calibrated pace of immigration to prevent our citizen

population from shrinking. The motion also lays out the priorities and approaches which the Government shouldtake to resolve the current strains on infrastructure particularly transport; to plan and develop our infrastructure

for the future, ahead of demand; to make sure that the benefits from our population policies flow toSingaporeans.

The motion also sets out what we propose to do between now and 2020, and beyond 2020. There are twoclear phases because between now and 2020, we have some clearer idea of what the world will be like; beyond

2020, we have to wait and see. So between now and 2020, we are slowing down the inflow significantly and weexpect to slow down growth significantly. We are reducing the intake of foreign workers; we are moderating the

inflow of new citizens and immigrants to top up the population. We are maintaining Permanent Residents’

numbers at about the present size, half a million or so. And in my judgment, this is the most viable path forSingapore to balance our different objectives, to slow down our ageing, to make up for the shortfall in our babies

and at the same time, to keep our economy healthy and create jobs and push companies to upgrade.

It is a significant move, it is a calibrated move. I think this is a judicious thing to do. There is a saying attributed to

Laozi. In Chinese, it says, "治大国若烹小鲜” – “Govern a great nation as you would cook a small fish”. Inother words, very carefully, gently, do not overdo it, you may ruin it. I think that we cannot overdo things. This is

what is judicious and I think this is what is workable.

Beyond 2020, in the next decade to 2030, things are much more uncertain and open. We do not have 20/20vision of what is going to happen there. The Opposition laughs at us why we do not have 20/20 foresight.

Nobody knows what is going to happen in 2030. Even in 2020 you cannot be sure. How would the world be,

how would Singapore be? What would we need to do? It will depend on many things; on our TFR, how muchprogress we make in restructuring? On the global situation, what happens in the world around us? Is it peace, is

it war? Is it prosperity, is it a recession or depression or worse?

And therefore, we cannot decide on a population trajectory beyond 2020. That has to be left to a future

Government and future Singaporeans to decide. And in particular, especially, we are not deciding on apopulation of 6.9 million for 2030 now. The White Paper actually made that clear but the number got taken out

of context and it took on a life of its own.

Six point nine million is not a population target; it is a basis for us to plan our infrastructure for the long termbecause we need to build ahead of demand and give us options for the future and buffer. We have to start

building now and we cannot push that off to the future. If we want new housing estates, if you want new train

lines, it takes many years to build and once completed, it is going to be there for many, many more years.

So, beyond 2020, things are still vague, uncertain. And therefore, nearer 2020, we will review the populationprojections and our policies again. Then we can decide how much further we should slow down in that next

decade. To reduce workforce growth to 1%, which is what the White Paper projects, or to cut even further?

The more babies we have, the faster we raise productivity, of course, the fewer foreign workers we need. We

know that. We have to work hard at it but we would have to wait and see how things turn out. All these areclearly set out in the amended motion and I hope that this reassures many Member of Parliaments that it is a wise

thing for the Government and for Singapore to do.

2/27/13

62/77

Many MPs have asked, “Where are we heading ultimately? What is the maximum population which Singaporecan hold, not just 2030 but in the long term, forever, beyond 2030? What is the final number?“ Do we see the

population growing indefinitely? No. The island is finite. We can reclaim, we have another few hundreds or

another 100 square kilometres, 10,000 hectares possibly. But reclamation does not push my internationalboundary. And even if I went all the way up to my international boundary and fill up Raffles Lighthouse, that is

just that and it will fill up. So, it is finite.

Eventually, we must reach zero population growth. Already the White Paper projects slower growth to 2020 inthe population, and even slower growth beyond 2020 in the decade beyond that. Eventually, we will reach zero

population growth. When and where? Time will tell. It depends on our physical limits but it also depends on our

circumstances and on attitudes of future generations of Singaporeans. What they choose. If you look at theresident population, it is easier to tell what will happen. With the resident population, we can roughly estimate

how many babies we are likely to get at the most optimistic calculation and what we think is a sustainable rate ofinflow of new citizens.

Now, 3.8 million of resident population -- citizens and PRs -- and if you go by the White Paper projections, itwill stabilise at most 4.2 million to 4.4 million eventually. That is it. After that, it is flat. We will have a population

pyramid, which we hope is about a cylinder. Balanced between the old and the young, and not over-balancedwith that big heavy bulge of old people supported by very narrow neck of younger Singaporeans.

The resident population is going to stabilise, so that means the non-resident population will also eventually have

to level off. Otherwise, we will have more and more non-residents per Singaporean and I do not think that is

acceptable. As many MPs have pointed out, this is what the Gulf states accept. And they have ratios of 10:1 ormay be even more; people are not quite sure. But that is not Singapore’s model.

What will the total population add up to eventually? In my view, if you look at 2030, I think 6 million will not be

enough to meet Singaporeans’ needs as our population ages because we have this problem of the Baby

Boomers and that bulge of ageing people moving through the system. I believe that the total population in 2030should be significantly below 6.9 million and beyond 2030, in the very long term, it should not increase beyond

that. So the final number should be significantly below 6.9 million. That is something for future generations todecide. Meanwhile, we should build up our infrastructure ahead of demand so that people do not feel the sort of

strains which they feel today.

Good infrastructure is critical to ensure a high quality of life for Singaporeans, as our population grows. All

Singaporeans would like to see affordable homes, clean and modern neighbourhoods. Families would like to seemore parks, more childcare facilities and more integrated townships. The elderly would like to see more Senior

Activity Centres, more healthcare facilities and the young would like fun new developments, example, *Scape

Youth Park, extreme sports, thrilling things and buzz.

Quite a number of MPs have pointed out that the living environment affects TFR. I accept that. I believe that.One reason is that I can see among young people, a very, very strong norm now. House first, baby later.

Couples want to move in to their own flat before they marry and having babies, even if they are registered, theywill wait till their house is ready, which means waiting three to four years from now. Before they move in, I think

then they have tea ceremony and so on, then they are formally living together and then we hope the baby will

come before very long.

We are ramping up the supply of BTO flats. We hope this will help. I think priority for first-timer parents should

2/27/13

63/77

help and hopefully will change patterns of behaviour and maybe they will say, “Why do we not start a baby andthen we can get a flat faster?” But this is not just a matter of incentives and rewards. It is really mindsets and

values and priorities. I hope that Singaporeans will make families one of their core priorities and would be flexiblewhen thinking how and when they want to start families and how they can fit their families into their lives – flexible

in their careers, flexible in their aspirations, flexible in their arrangements – with parents, with in-laws, with

childcare centres. We will help overcome all these structural impediments but finally the couples have to want tohave the kid because otherwise if the kid is born unwanted, it will create more problems.

Ministers Khaw Boon Wan and Lui Tuck Yew have presented, over the last few days, our plans for transport

and housing. The developments are well underway and I am confident we can, with planning, imagination and

creativity, transform Singapore. Punggol will be replicated, but there are also many other towns, each with itsown charms and when I am on leave in Singapore, I visit and walk along the park connectors to see and to enjoy

for myself what we have built.

Last December, I took a walk at the Bukit Panjang Park Connector, all along the Bukit Timah Expresswayparallel but beautifully planted nature, well used by residents. Then I went to the Sungei Pang Sua Park

Connector. Open, there is a canal on the other side is the railway line, old railway line which is going to be a

special green neighbourhood once we get our plans done – also very well patronised by the residents. Lots ofresidents, lots of dogs; all kinds. In fact there is a special signboard showing all the different kinds of dogs which

need to be muzzled. And there were about 20. I did not meet any of them but I saw the signboard.

It means that people are using it, people are enjoying it. The quality of life is there and we can create that quality

of life for all our Singaporeans. We will do that. But it is not just improving the physical environment. It is alsostrengthening the sense of belonging and place – what Ms Janice Koh said – not just a liveable, but a loveable

city. I agree with her. That is what we are trying to build but love cannot always be built. Love has to blossom.And that means that this needs many, many different people to be involved to lavish care, attention, passion, to

nurture to develop, to curate, to conserve and to tell the story.

I think we can do that. Common spaces to bond Singaporeans, whether it is a Community Club, whether it is a

neighbourhood park, whether it is at the hawker centres – places which have old memories and places where wemake new ones, whether it is the Punggol Waterway Kelong Bridge which is aligned with old Punggol Road, or

the new Dawson Estate in Queenstown, or the National Art Gallery.

Icons that make us proud to be Singaporeans – the Marina Bay skyline, still new but I think it is something which

we all should be proud of and can be. Changi Airport – an icon not just because it looks pretty but because itworks well. The Government will give extra emphasis to this hard ware. But as I said, the Government cannot do

it alone. We can build a house but only us, the people, can build a home. We can provide the common spaces,but it is up to all of us to nurture the healthy, vibrant communities. We can create the opportunities, but it is up to

us, the people, to define who a Singaporean is.

Ultimately, our population policy must strengthen our Singapore identity. Almost every Member of Parliament

talked about this. It was not in the White Paper because the White Paper focused on the tangible aspects, but itis very much in our thoughts.

I met a young lady in Teck Ghee market last Sunday and she asked me a very pertinent question. She said,

“What is the Singapore core?”

2/27/13

64/77

Let me share my thoughts. The Singapore core is really made up of people, of us. People who have our families

and homes here; people who embrace our values, ideals, who have sunk roots here, who has given their loyalty

to Singapore – for whom when you say the pledge, when you see the helicopter flying past National Day, it is aspecial moment.

Many would have been living in the heartlands, been to school together. We will share memories and

experiences. Emeritus Senior Minister Goh talked about some recently in this debate: National Service, SARS,

the global financial crisis, 9-11. Fears as well as joys; People willing to defend our nation, our families andfriends, our way of life because we feel as one together. We share sorrows together even if they are not our own

personal and immediate family. When two young boys were knocked down in Tampines, we all grieved with Mrand Mrs Francis Yap.

We celebrate successes together. When our Special Winter Olympics speed skating team did well and came

home with a haul of gold, silver and bronze medals, we rejoiced. When Nickson Fong, who is a Singaporean IT

expert in animation, won an Oscar for a new technique to make 3D animated faces and characters, wecelebrated with him. We feel together and we are in a cause together – committed to create a brighter future for

all of us.

Many of these people will be our children or will be children of Singaporeans born and breed here. We want

Singaporeans, please, have more children. In fact, please get married and then have children. To inherit what wehave built and to build on what we will inherit, to create a community which can trace its roots back to the

generations.

And so, we have the Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package. We have tried our best, squeeze our brains

dry, put in all the ideas which after testing and talking to people we think we work. But I am sure that there arefurther ideas and we have to keep on welcoming ideas from all sources and trying to raise our TFR.

But not every member of the Singapore core will or has to be born here. Some will be born elsewhere but have

embraced our values and decided to make this their home and nation. Immigrants have been critical toSingapore’s success. And over the years, many have embraced Singapore’s cause and made important

contributions to Singapore, been the fiercest defenders of Singapore and the most able propounders of our

cause, pushing our story worldwide. Rajaratnam was just one of them.

That is how we became a shining red dot. As Mr Rajaratnam said, and many of you have quoted, beingSingaporean is not a matter of ancestry; it is conviction and choice. I accept that the situation today is different

from what it was at Independence in the 1960s. The founding generation was brought together by an accident of

history at a time of great change. They were bound together by a cause of survival and building a nation. Becauseof them they built a nation with a distinctive Singaporean identity. So, you can recognise a Singaporean – you do

not have to wait for him to speak; you do not have to hear him. You just look at him, see how he walks, hisbody language – there is something about him that says, “I know he is one of us.” Not in Singapore but you can

be in America, you can be in India, anywhere in the world, he is distinguishable.

Therefore because we are distinguishable and identify with one another like that, it is harder for a new arrival to

come in and become like those who are born and breed here. Never quite the same; the accent will be a bitdifferent; the body language will be a bit different. Over time, the accent maybe will become more like Singlish –

especially if you come when you are young. But the first generation immigrant has something not quite the same

about him -- which is also why he is valuable to us because he or she adds something to us. We still need them

2/27/13

65/77

to strengthen our core, to reinforce our talent pool and to make lives better for Singaporeans.

We expect the new citizens to make the effort to integrate into our community, to commit their loyalty to

Singapore. Indeed there are non-Singaporeans who have lived and worked here, who deeply appreciate what

Singapore stands for and they want to contribute to the Singapore story by being Singaporeans. They have seenthe world; they have seen how things work elsewhere; they have seen how Singapore is and they say, “Yes, let

me make this my home and nation.” I say, we should have a big heart and the open spirit to welcome suchpeople and help them become Singaporean. Let their children grow up in our schools; let their children be part of

the next generation of Singaporeans.

The US has such a philosophy of citizenship. The ideal is the Statue of Liberty and the peom, “Give me your

tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” And in fact, they have brought in successivegenerations of emigres – Irish, Germans, Scandinavians, Polish, Russians, Jews, Asians – and greatly enriched

their society, not without difficulty, not without indigestion sometimes, tensions, but it has made America what it

is. It is still not easy and immigration is a vexed issue today – us against them. They cannot get a goodimmigration law passed in Congress. As Mr Obama says, “A lot of folks forget that most of us used to be them.”

And I think, sometimes, we forget that, “Most of us used to be them.” But this is the US’ great strengthcompared to many other countries.

Japan is the opposite. Very difficult to absorb immigrants, even people who are partly-Japanese who have lived

overseas and came back to Japan do not find it easy to integrate into their society. They have people who are

half-Japanese – born of American GI fathers after the war – they could not fit in and they were shipped to live inBrazil, which is a much more mixed and tolerant society. Then, the Japanese were short of population. They

brought some of them in to live in Japan and try to integrate – it did not work. In the end, they gave them free

one-way aeroplane tickets, and said, “Please go back to Brazil and please do not come here again.” It is sad butthat is the way their society is. One Japanese who is the director of the Japan Immigration Policy Institute says,

“America manages to stay vibrant because it attracts people from all over the world. On the other hand, Japan iscontent to all but shut out people from overseas.”

Those are two extreme models. We are neither the US nor Japan. The US is a continent. If you bring in a few

hundred thousand of a new ethnic group, there are some who can melt into the population, or there is some

corner of America where they can fit in. Singapore is not like that. But Singapore cannot be like Japan either.Otherwise, we will suffer the consequences which Japan is now suffering, and which you have heard discussed

over the last few days.

We have to be open in a controlled way and if others accept our values and commit to building a better

Singapore for all of us, can make a contribution and can integrate into our society, then we should accept themas one of our own.

Around the Singapore core our society will need a pool of transient non-residents – people who come to live

and work here for a time, not to retire, not permanently. They serve Singaporeans – build our flats and MRT

lines, take care of our elderly, bring skills and experiences that we ourselves lack. This is the other aspect of theproblem which vexes people. If the non-residents outnumber the core, then the core asks, “Are we being

diluted?” And the young Singaporeans – like the young girl whom I met in Teck Ghee market – will ask me thisquestion. I did not give her such a long explanation but after a short explanation, she asked a supplementary

question. She said, “Will there be a Singapore core in 2030?”

2/27/13

66/77

I said, “That is the whole aim of this exercise. That is what we are trying to achieve! If your generation have more

children, then I think it will be easier for us to have a core.” She is a teenager now; by 2030, she would be wellin child-bearing age.

There is a lot of discussion over the percentage. If you go to 6.9 million, then only 55% will be citizens, and is

that enough? I think the numbers do matter. We will track and control the numbers of non-Singaporeans and the

inflow of immigrants so that we are not overwhelmed just by the sheer flood of people coming in. Whether thecore is strong or not, and how the transients fit in, also depends on the role which the different groups play in

Singapore. How they fit into our society.

For example, if a big group of the transients are construction workers here -- which is a fact today; I think have

about 250,000 or 300,000 construction workers – temporarily for a project, to do something for us, I do notthink that that will weaken the Singapore core. They are here, they do a job, we are grateful to them, the job is

done, they go home. Provided we can house them and transport them suitably and provided that the numbers donot cause problems in our housing estates or in our public transport. If we can manage that, this is a transient

population. We are not expecting you to integrate. You are doing a job and we are grateful for what you are

doing for us.

So we will watch the numbers but the Singapore core is not just about the numbers. It is about the spirit. I talkedabout the spirit earlier. If the spirit is strong, we can manage. It is critical to imbue the younger Singaporeans with

the Singapore spirit.

We will always out Singaporeans first and make sure that the benefits of our population policies flow to

Singaporeans. First of all, in our society, we make sure that Singaporeans are clearly in the majority so that ouridentity is not diluted by new arrivals. Secondly, in our policies, treating Singaporeans better than non-

Singaporeans especially when it comes to healthcare, education and housing. And thirdly, in our workforce,giving Singaporeans every opportunity to upgrade and take up good jobs and enjoy fair and equal treatment

from employers. I know there are grouses; I heard Asst Prof Eugene Tan talk about his specific issues, and Mr

PatrickTay raised this from a union point of view. We will make sure that Singaporeans are fairly treated.

It has to be so and will always be so because the Government is elected by Singaporeans and responsible toSingaporeans. Let me add also that at the same time, Singaporeans cannot afford to be just here for the ride,

passengers. We are not an oil state where citizens can live on the oil wealth and non citizens do the work. For

Singapore to thrive, we Singaporeans must always stay lean and hungry. If we lose our drive, we will lose out.Mr Teo Siong Seng, Mr Liang Eng Hwa and others talked about this but I would like to underline this point that

there would be privileges to be Singaporeans. It is a special status which we should be proud of but we shouldnot think of it as a perk. It is also a responsibility because we are not just the beneficiaries of the country’s

success. We also need to be the architects and the builders of our future success.

We have got to fulfil our duties as citizens, defend our country and fellow Singaporeans against danger especially

if you are an NS-man in the SAF or the Home Team, help one another to build a strong community and worktogether to help Singapore succeed. If we retain this spirit and work together, we can create a much better

tomorrow for our children.

That is my promise to all Singaporeans. You are at the heart of all our policies. You are the reason why my team

and I entered politics. To work for a better Singapore, to work for Singaporeans. And we want Singapore to dowell so that Singaporeans can do well.

2/27/13

67/77

This conversation on population does not end today. Based on the public views and based on the MPs’

speeches, I think it is clear that there are at least three areas which we need to talk about further. “Further”meaning not just over the next few months but over the next few years.

First, marriage and procreation. What more can we do to encourage Singaporeans to have more babies?

Secondly, economy. How to strike that balance between a vibrant economy and our other objectives; how do

we restructure our economy to rely less on foreigners; how do we benefit Singaporeans more through economicgrowth especially beyond 2020 when the economy is going to be slower? Thirdly, the question of identity. How

do we strengthen Singaporeans’ identity even as we keep our society open? These are deep questions, they areimportant ones for us and we will have to continue and we will have to continue to discuss them. I encourage

Singaporeans to continue to discuss them over the next few years including in Our Singapore Conversation.

We are all in this together, as Emeritus Senior Minister Goh reminded us. This is an issue not just for the

Government or the PAP but for all Singaporeans including all political parties. We have to go beyond the rhetoricto develop actual plans that address our challenges and improve our lives. I ask for your support in doing this.

If we make the right choices, our future is bright. We are in a strong position with a high international standing.

We have overcome long odds before with creativity and fortitude. In our darkest days after Separation in 1965,

Mr Lee Kwan Yew vowed to Singaporeans, “Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear.” Andwe did it. Together, we built a nation. So never fear. We can build an even better Singapore for all

Singaporeans. Mdm Speaker, I support the amended motion [Applause].

5.32 pm

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Teo Chee Hean) : It has been an intense five days. Seldom have I seen

Members on both sides of the House rise and speak with so much intensity and passion. We have heard morethan 70 Members share their views, concerns, and suggestions on this important issue of population. This is the

longest debate, in my memory, that we have had on any single motion in Parliament. And so it should be. Itreflects the importance that Members have placed on the far-reaching implications of our population challenge,

as well as Members’ concerns about resolving the current issues facing Singaporeans today.

At the core of the challenge we are facing is the ageing population. This is happening at a scale and a speed that

is unprecedented for us. Nine hundred thousand Singaporeans, or one quarter of our population, will havecrossed the 65-year-old mark by 2030. It is going to be a one-time occurrence in our population profile in

Singapore. After that, the bulge would have moved through. The senior population in Singapore will stabilise and

eventually, it will decline. But how do we deal with this very large and very fast ageing of our population inSingapore over the next 18 years and still maintain our stability, our economy, our drive and most importantly,

our ability to support these seniors, and make sure they have the life, the dignity that they deserve because theybuilt Singapore?

Our population challenge is complex and multi-faceted, with many inter-linked parts – raising birth rates, takingcare of our ageing population, creating good jobs for Singaporeans, ensuring a good living environment. In

drawing up the White Paper, we sought to balance many demands and constraints. There are no simple or easysolutions. And we need to find the right balance.

Mdm Speaker, over the past year, as we worked on the White Paper, my mind could not help returning to my

daily experiences as a Member of Parliament in Pasir Ris. I have been in this House for 20 years, about 16 of

2/27/13

68/77

them representing Pasir Ris.

Pasir Ris was a young town then. There were babies and prams wherever one went. We faced the challenges

that new towns today face – childcare and kindergarten places close to home; enrolment in primary schools ofchoice. About six months ago, I met a young lady now in secondary school. She happily showed me a photo of

her receiving a prize from me when she was a baby at a baby show. We both looked younger then.

Now, just 16 years later, whenever I visit a food centre, market or neighbourhood centre. Or attend a block

party or some other event, I meet at least one or two senior residents, some of whom I have known for someyears, on wheelchairs. I feel a little sad for them, but on the other hand, I am also heartened because they are out

and about, able to take part in community life and keeping active with their neighbours and their friends. Our liftupgrading and barrier-free access programmes allow them to come out, on their own, or with their families or

care-givers, instead of being confined at home.

I visited a resident last week. I have known him for a long time. Just two days before this debate started. Let us

call him Mr B. Mr B has had a difficult year. He lost one leg. But he has got a positive attitude to life. He ishappy because he is right-sizing from his current flat to a new studio apartment in familiar surroundings in Pasir

Ris, which will be completed later this year. He will live in a smaller flat which he can manage himself, and has

unlocked some money from the sale of his larger flat for his living expenses. And he continues to volunteerregularly, taking a wheelchair-friendly public bus to the church in Pasir Ris.

Two weeks ago, I visited the Apex Harmony Lodge for dementia patients in Pasir Ris, of which I am the patron.

Mr G is one of the 198 residents there. There are another 22 on day care.

For the 198 residents, there are 110 staff. Eighty per cent are nursing and support care staff, and of these, 80%

are non-Singaporeans. The other 20% are administrative staff or support staff, and all are Singaporeans.

Apex Harmony Lodge is the only facility in Singapore, admitting only people with dementia. The nurses, who arevery professional, in consultation with family members and allied health staff draw up an individualised care plan.

The Lodge is now at full capacity. It has plans for extension, to at least double its capacity. It will need more

staff, both Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans, to take care of the residents.

Mr G draws wonderful pen-sketches. He gave me this beautiful sketch of the Lodge [referring to the slide on

the screen], but as he gave it to me, he seemed very attached to it. So I wrote a few words to wish him goodhealth, and asked him to keep the sketch safely for me.

Mdm Speaker, my constituency is still considered young. It was developed only about 20 to 25 years ago. I

think of the seniors and how we can take care of them, and help them stay active, healthy and engaged in the

community.

I think of the young lady, now in secondary school who has her life ahead of her. We need to make preparationsnow, so that she can have an exciting and fulfilling career in Singapore. So that she can be near her parents to be

there for them in the same way as they are there for her today. So that she can have the support she needs tohelp care for them, and her own family and children too. So, Mdm Speaker, it is with families and Singaporeans

like this, all over Singapore, in mind that we debate this key population issue.

Members will agree with me that it has been a good, passionate debate. As Members debated the roadmap for

2/27/13

69/77

the future, they also raised important concerns, reflecting the views of Singaporeans and the issues they facetoday.

The Marriage & Parenthood package was widely welcomed by Singaporeans and Members of this House. Wewill continue to study and consider all good ideas.

Members from both sides of the House asked for greater clarity and assurances that the population range for

2030 was not a population target, but was only to be used for infrastructure planning. They called upon theGovernment to give priority to addressing the current bottlenecks, implement the long-term infrastructure plans,

and ensure that the benefits flow to Singaporeans. They also asked Government to carry out a medium-term

review of our population policies and assumptions.

These are all important and useful points, which reflect the views and interests of our colleagues in this House,and of Singaporeans. Therefore, I welcome their addition, via an amendment from Mr Liang Eng Hwa, to the

motion. These additional points in the amendment indeed are in line with the intent of the Government, and help

to clarify this intent, and reassure Singaporeans that discussion and conversation have to continue.

Mdm Speaker, we have spent the last five days discussing this issue of population in Parliament. In a moment,we will vote on the amended motion. Madam, I had asked the Clerk to distribute copies of the amended motion

for Members during tea break, and invite Members to refer to this sheet now.

Mdm Speaker, what are we voting on today? First, the motion as amended: “supports maintaining a strong

Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have children, supplemented by acalibrated pace of immigration to prevent the citizen population from shrinking.”

Madam, Members from both sides of the House agree to this in principle. We agree on the number of PRs to be

taken in per year, at a rate significantly lower since 2009. We differ on the exact number of new citizens weshould take in each year but we agree to this in principle.

Second, the motion calls on the Government to attend to the current concerns of Singaporeans to:

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

(b) ensure that the benefits of our population policies, such as better job opportunities and salaries, flow toSingaporeans.

And I think we all agree with this and the Government pledges to do so.

Third, up to 2020, the White Paper is proposing a major shift – a significant slowdown in our rate of workforceand population growth, and GDP growth, compared to the path that we were on. This is a carefully balanced

path between two extremes – neither carrying on with the rapid growth rates of the last three decades whichwould take us beyond our capacity; nor having a freeze which would stall the economy, and be harmful to

Singaporeans. Hence, supporting the motion is supporting making this significant shift, but in a balanced way, and

signals that we should not take either extreme.

Fourth, beyond 2020, we are not deciding now on any specific population size. The amended motion from MrLiang makes clear that the population projections beyond 2020 are for the purpose of land use and infrastructure

planning, and not a population target. The motion calls for the Government to plan, invest in, and implement

2/27/13

70/77

infrastructure development ahead of demand. Major infrastructure takes years to build, and once built will bethere for decades. Preparing the infrastructure ahead of time and ahead of demand provides Singaporeans with

more options in the future. Under-providing will give Singaporeans less flexibility in the future, and risks facing thesort of bottlenecks that we are facing today when plans are not properly aligned and meshed.

Fifth, finally, and most important, the motion calls on the Government to carry out medium-term reviews of ourpopulation policies and assumptions to take into account the changing needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as

well as changing domestic and external circumstances. The Prime Minister has said that we should carry out thisreview before 2020.

Hence, voting for the motion does not mean that the conversation stops. The conversation continues. And so itshould. The conversation on population did not start this week in this House. It started slowly but earnestly,

about a year ago, when we started consulting Singaporeans of all ages, from different walks of life. Similarly, theconversation does not end in this room today. The end of this debate does not mark the end of the discussion on

this very important issue. The discussion should, and must continue.

The White Paper and this debate has focused the minds of Singaporeans on this important subject, painted out

the challenges we face with an ageing and shrinking population, the scenarios, the consequences and possiblepathways. It is a subject which affects all of us.

I would thus like to call on Members to support the amended motion before you. For those who would like to

see more discussion and exploration of possibilities, there is no need now to come to a final decision, yes or no. I

invite you to keep an open mind as the conversation on the future pathway continues. We must continuallyreview our approach and adapt our strategies depending on Singaporeans’ changing social and economic needs,

and how our domestic and external circumstances change; while always putting the interests of Singaporeans atthe heart of everything that we do. The amended motion calls for a medium-term review and for the discussion to

continue.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank all Members for sharing their insights, and debating this motion with such

energy and passion, with our focus on building a better future for Singaporeans. With leaders, business andpeople working together in a concerted manner, I am confident that we can truly have a Sustainable Population

for a Dynamic Singapore for many more generations of Singaporeans to come. Let us all come together to build

a better life, a better home and a better future for Singaporeans, now and in the future.

Mdm Speaker, may I take the opportunity to wish all those celebrating the new year, a very happy Chinese NewYear and a bountiful year ahead for everyone. Mdm Speaker, I support the amended motion [Applause].

Mdm Speaker : We have now come to the conclusion of the debate and I shall put the necessary Questions to

the House for a decision. There are two amendments proposed by Mr Liang Eng Hwa as indicated in the Order

Paper.

I shall put the Questions on the amendments in the order in which they relate to the text of the original Motion.The first amendment by Mr Liang Eng Hwa is that, in line 3, to leave out the words “population policy”.

Question, “That the words proposed to be left out, be left out”, put and agreed to.

I now come to the second amendment by Mr Liang Eng Hwa. The second amendment is that the words

2/27/13

71/77

proposed by the Member be added at the end of the motion.

Question, “That the words proposed to be added, be added”, put and agreed to.

Mdm Speaker : The Original motion, as amended, is now before the House. The Question is:

“That this House endorses Paper Cmd. 1 of 2013 on "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore" as theroadmap 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 projections; and

supports maintaining a strong Singaporean core by encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and havechildren, 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 infrastructureplanning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to:

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

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

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

(d) carry out medium term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing

needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.”

As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Some hon. Members: Aye

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Aljunied) : Mdm Speaker, I call for a Division.

Mdm Speaker : Instead of claiming a Division, would the Member wish for his dissent to be recorded?

Mr Low Thia Khiang : Madam, I wish to call for a Division on the motion.

Mdm Speaker : Will hon. Members who support the Division please rise in their places?

More than five hon. Members rose in support of the call for division.

Mdm Speaker: Thank you. You may be seated. Clerk, please ring the Division bells.

After two minutes --

Mdm Speaker: Serjeant-at-Arms, lock the doors, please.

Question put on the motion as amended.

Take a Division. Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are advised to read the instructions for

voting which are found in the left compartment of their seats, where the earpieces are placed. Members, you maynow begin to vote.

2/27/13

72/77

There is one Member who did not vote. Yes, Mr Chen Show Mao, would you like to vote now? Please indicate

your vote.

Mr Chen Show Mao (Aljunied) : Yes, Madam. “No” for me.

Mdm Speaker : There is one more Member whose vote is not recorded. Mr Pritam Singh, would you like to

indicate your vote?

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied) : I have.

Mdm Speaker : But it is not recorded on the screen. You can indicate your vote orally.

Mr Pritam Singh : The light is not coming on.

Mdm Speaker : It has passed the time for the electronic voting. Mr Pritam Singh, would you like to indicate

your vote now?

Mr Pritam Singh : I have pressed “no”, but Mdm Speaker, it is an unequivocal “no”.

Mdm Speaker : There are 77 Ayes, 13 Noes, and one Abstention.

Division taken: Ayes, 77; Noes, 13; Abstention, 1.

Ayes

Ang Hin Kee

Ang Wei Neng

Baey Yam Keng

Chan Chun Sing

Chong, Charles

Christopher de Souza

Dhinakaran, R

Fang, Nicholas

Fatimah Lateef

Fong, Arthur

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

Foo Mee Har

Fu Hai Yien, Grace

2/27/13

73/77

Gan Kim Yong

Gan Thiam Poh

Goh Chok Tong

Halimah Yacob

Hawazi Daipi

Heng Chee How

Heng Swee Keat

Hri Kumar Nair

Intan Azura Mokhtar

Iswaran, S

Janil Puthucheary

Khaw Boon Wan

Khor Lean Suan, Amy

Lam Pin Min

Lee Bee Wah

Lee, Desmond

Lee, Ellen

Lee Hsien Loong

Lee Yi Shyan

Liang Eng Hwa

Liew, Mary

Lim Biow Chuan

Lim Hng Kiang

Lim Swee Say

Lim Wee Kiak

2/27/13

74/77

Low, Penny

Low Yen Ling

Lui Tuck Yew

Mah Bow Tan

Masagos Zulkifli B M M

Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman

Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim

Neo, Lily

Ng Phek Hoong, Irene

Ong, David

Ong Teng Koon

Phua Lay Peng, Denise

Seah Kian Peng

Seng Han Thong

Shanmugam, K

Sim Ann

Sitoh Yih Pin

Tan Chin Siong, Sam

Tan Chuan-Jin

Tan Soon Neo, Jessica

Tay Teck Guan, Patrick

Teo Chee Hean

Teo Ho Pin

Teo, Josephine

Teo Ser Luck

2/27/13

75/77

Teo Siong Seng

Tharman Shanmugaratnam

Tin Pei Ling

Tong Chun Fai, Edwin

Vikram Nair

Vivian Balakrishnan

Wong Kan Seng

Wong, Lawrence

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yam, Alex

Yeo Guat Kwang

Zainal Sapari

Zainudin Nordin

Zaqy Mohamad

Noes

Chen Show Mao

Chiam, Lina

Faizah Jamal

Giam Yean Song, Gerald

Koh, Janice

Lee Li Lian

Lien, Laurence

Lim, Sylvia

Low Thia Khiang

Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap

2/27/13

76/77

Png Eng Huat

Pritam Singh

Yee Jenn Jong

Abstention

Tan Kheng Boon, Eugene

Original motion, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

“That this House endorses Paper Cmd. 1 of 2013 on "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore" as theroadmap 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 projections; andsupports 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 infrastructureplanning, and not a population target; and calls on the Government to:

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

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

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

Singaporeans; and

(d) carry out medium term reviews of our population policies and assumptions to take into account the changing

needs of Singapore and Singaporeans, as well as changing domestic and external circumstances.”

Adjournment

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed. − [Mr Gan Kim Yong].

Adjourned accordingly at

6.01 pm to a date to be fixed.

Written Answers to Questions for Oral AnswerNot Answered by 3.00 pm

Written Answers to Questions

2/27/13

77/77

Installation of Noise Barriers along KeyExpressways

1 Mr Zainal Sapari asked the Minister for Transport whether concrete noise barriers can be installed alongcertain stretches of key expressways that cut through residential estates given the high volume of car traffic.

Mr Lui Tuck Yew : LTA will be installing noise barriers at selected stretches of road viaducts as part of a trial.

The trial will allow LTA to assess the effectiveness of such barriers, as well as ascertain the challenges in their

installation, maintenance and design. The trial locations are being finalised and LTA will engage specialistcontractors to propose appropriate noise barriers for the trial.

Annexes

Vernacular Speeches