Population White Paper is unpopular and unsustainable
I have yet to read an online commentary that is receptive to the Population White Paper. Most don’t even get past the dreadful 6.9 million figure. While the government tries to convince us of this need for further population explosion and explain how this can be managed with an expanded rail network, new housing estates and more green spaces, nobody is listening because we lapse into an uncontrollable fit when any mention of an increase is brought up.
Our leaders may regard the negativity as irrational and what they are proposing as inconvenient but unavoidable, but we should ask if they have started off on the wrong foot when examining this issue of an ageing population. Assumptions and lines of thinking need to be challenged.
Firstly, the government’s style is to look at sustaining economic growth and work backwards to decide the population base that is required to support this growth. Perhaps another way is to determine an optimal population and look at ways of sustaining GDP growth per capita based on that, instead of gross GDP growth. This could necessitate a population decline that will be more palatable to Singaporeans. As we have witnessed in the past decade, increasing population led to worsening quality of life despite the growth, so what is the point?
Another question we should ask: Is a dwindling support ratio really as terrifying as it appears? We may be better off adjusting to a new normal than to try to artificially prop up the number. A lower support ratio can be mitigated by increasing social spending, encouraging greater savings, improving health levels, raising the retirement age, and boosting the workforce from within core resident population. Instead, the government can’t look beyond a straight and easy answer of inward migration to boost the ratio. To make matters worse, the resultant higher cost of living, overcrowding and competition of jobs have a direct adverse effect on these aforementioned mitigating factors.
Then there is the productivity drive. The government is basically conceding defeat on this front by claiming that 2-3% improvement is a stretched target and 1-2% is a more realistic longer term aim. The Paper cites OECD countries with levels of productivity growth averaging 1-2%, but it is a red herring to compare Singapore to countries such as Japan. We may have a first world economy that churns out wonderful numbers on the aggregate level, but this is done with brute force factor accumulation (mainly labour) à la developing economy style. In short, there is tremendous quantity but low quality in the kind of growth we achieve. Therefore, I remain unconvinced that our productivity can’t improve further.
Lastly, there is the issue of true sustainability. Despite the title “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”, the glaring omission in the Paper is what happens after 2030 with a population of 6.9 million? Do we need to support this population with further increases? If so, aren’t we just pushing problems to the future generation? Ironically, the Paper says “We must thus rely less on foreign labour, use our resources better, and redouble efforts to improve productivity. That is the only sustainable way to grow the economy and raise real wages”, before going on to state that productivity growth will be limited and we need more foreign labour. There is no better way of contradicting oneself and admitting that the solution as laid out in the Paper is not sustainable.
What I’m guessing, from the government’s perspective, is that this silver tsunami caused by the retirement of baby boomers is a huge one-off wave that the country has to ride through before it realigns to an equilibrium of lower birth rates seen since the 1970s. That explains why the population projection consists of a large jump in foreigners. These foreigners will mainly be in the construction, healthcare and domestic care sectors where the intake is elastic. Arguably then, when the tsunami has subsided, we can tighten the supply and revert towards a core residency of 5 million.
But it can’t just be about importing more people to boost growth. This would be a sad example of our poor productivity if it took the various government agencies one whole year to come up with a solution as simplistic as that. Even if it really is that simple, the government has to explain it properly to Singaporeans and it hasn’t done a convincing job so far. I am no economist nor expert in demography and I recognise that this is a difficulty problem with no easy solution that is both workable and tenable to all Singaporeans, but maybe the government should listen more to its citizens than the economists and demographic experts.
Ultimately, it is better to allow Singaporeans to have a say than to shove an unpopular solution in our faces. If it has to come down to hard choices between foreigners, higher taxes to fund social spending, a stagnant economy, retiring later, etc, let the people pick which pills to swallow.
Related posts:
Declining birth rate is a concern or is that a myth itself?
We are screwed big time again. hope the 60% learn………….
Instead of just crunching the numbers, the government should also study the sociological effects of an increased population. Such intense population density could have adverse effects on our psychological well-being and quality of life. If we worship economist, why not listen to behavioral economist and read “small is beautiful”. Also, that is no artist impression of east coast park, that is 第一海水浴场 “Beach No. 1″ in Qingdao, PRC. During summer, you can no longer see the beach and hotel rates triple.
Nimzo, I note spaces on that beach and in the water.
I reckon enough place for at least 10,000 more bodies.
And I’m sure the government is already exploring technologies to stack bodies on top of one another.
Leaving aside the complaints about overcrowding, increased competition from foreigners in school and the workplace, what assurance can the government give on the following areas:
Water sufficiency – how many new NeWater plants and reservoirs are needed?
Rubbish – how much faster will we run out if land fill to bury our rubbish?
Power – how many new power stations are needed?
Reserves – money not enough; so how much more reserves will the government need to accumulate for a 40% increase in population? It will be a worse rush if we are ever again faced with a shortage in the supply of certain foodstuffs, eg. milk powder and eggs.
Disease control – with the overcrowding, SARS, dengue, bird flu will more easily spread and reach epidemic levels.
Congestion – inevitably, people will congregate in times such as the Chingay, NDP, GSS, sports and concerts at the national stadium and esplanade. Are you sure your transport system can cope? What about venue capacity? As things currently stand, we are wondering when a human stampede will occur at MRT stations and shopping centers.
I am worried, very worried, very very pissed. I am clear where my vote will go in 2016. No doubts, no change in mind.
They keep saying that low salaries will not attract able men and will lower the quality of people entering politics and taking office, blah blah blah… giving all sorts of execuses to pay them astronomical salaries. See what these so-called ‘able men’ wearing white brought us to?
If they say we do not have enough population and we have to bring in more outsiders, then who told us to ‘stop at 2′ many years ago? And before they opened the flood-gate, have they thought about all the inconveniences that will come along? Do they have solutions (other than making people pay and pay and causing more inconveniences) to all the unsolved problems in people’s daily lives? Are these people running the office now really ‘able’ men?
Sad thing for Singapore is majority of them (the 60%, hopefully come next GE, will be lesser) still believe in their ‘ability’ and continue to support them blindly.
Perhaps they really want us to vote them out cos they have already emptied out the reserves. I do not think they can manage 7m people.
there goes my country which I gave 2.5 years of my life plus 13 cycles of ict……………welcome prcs, pinoy, burmese, anneh and god knows what else…………….i am having a drink tomorrow evening to discuss this with friends at ………………….
Yes, it’s really sad when you realise that surnames like Tan, Lim and Yap will become the minority or even vanish from the country in years to come.
URA Land Use Plan is eerily silent throughout 80 pages about the only other significant land supply source from en bloc sales.
OMG – 630 likes as at 6:30 pm, 31 Jan 2013 for one comment in Yahoo News article to vote in more Opposition MPs!
Law Minister K Shanmugam is in Nee Soon GRC – Remember this pls as we en bloc The Istana to Iskandar.
Using the en bloc law, MinLaw unlocks land value for Private Developers so that Rich Foreigners and Rich Naturalized Singaporeans can buy redevelopment projects in prime/popular areas, after pushing out Native Singaporeans who CANNOT buy back in same area with “windfall” en bloc sale proceeds when PROPERTY IS ALL ABOUT LOCATION AND TIMING.
This is what Pay And Profit (PAP) call “WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT” approach.
[…] of Singapore: What shores will Singapore lose in 7-million population plan? – Void Decker: Population White Paper is unpopular and unsustainable – Lew Yan Liang 刘彦良: Things we can do to beat overpopulation – My Singapore News: […]
Basically hasn’t moved away from the model of population-led economic growth. We can’t be sure that this govt will keep its word and cap the population at 6.9 m. What if they claimed again that they need to let in more to take advantage of opportunities. They might just go, “oops , I did it again”. We will be left to suffer the consequences of this shortsighted bunch and their successors. I think trust is a huge issue here, rather than the projected population.
Is Population Growth a Ponzi scheme? Read http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321
I saw this article spread around too. But I’m surprised it took Singaporeans so long to realise that!
Mentioned in a satirical post I wrote a few months back:
http://www.voiddecker.com/2012/11/its-not-slower-growth-stupid/
That the ruling government has no talent to drive our future is a sad and proven fact. Cheap labour is the only solution they have for maintaining GDP, which not surprisingly is the KPI for their own compensation. Change their KPI to “Happiness Index” of the people and the white paper will be singing a different tune altogether. It’s about time someone wrote a independent Whitepaper on ensuring the quality of life through political reform.
“Ultimately, it is better to allow Singaporeans to have a say than to shove an unpopular solution in our faces…. let the people pick which pills to swallow.”
That’s exactly what a strong leadership should NOT do. People are inherently selfish. Few will care about a 40% reduction in citizen population in two generations when they won’t be around to see it. Just give me my space NOW, who knows what’ll happen in 20 years time. It’s human nature. It’s also why nothing is done about global warming — most will agree it’s bad but which state will halt their industries to save the planet?
Let the leadership make the tough decisions. That’s what they were voted in for anyways.
Many do care about what happens in future, especially those with children. And most of us will still be around in 20 years time. It’s precisely because we are worried about what happens in 20 years time that we are voicing objections. And as I wrote, the other problem is what happens after 2030?
The government is voted in for different reasons by different people. It’s wrong to think that just because they are voted in, they should be allowed to do anything, especially in a flawed democracy. It will be even worse if you think they are always right.
You still don’t get it. Look, there’s the big picture (aging and declining population due to TFR), then there are self-interests (I want my space, my comfort, my car, my kids, etc). If you poll the people, 9 out of 10 people will decide based on self-interests. That’s human nature. And it’s extremely hard to overcome. Heck, the whole TFR problem is because people are selfish and not reproducing enough to replace themselves. How can you convince people that making babies is the right thing to do and that they should set aside their lifestyles, comfort zone, etc? How can you convince people to abandon their condos and vacations and spend their time and money on raising children instead? It can’t be done. LKY saw it 20 years ago. It’s amazing to me that there are people who can’t even see it now.
People become emotional when their self-interests are threatened. That’s why an unpopular policy could be the right one, while a popular strategy could lead us to doom.
Popularity means nothing. It’s a non-argument.
While it’s true that many out there are only complaining based on self interest, there are lots of others who are giving objective reasons why they think this is a bad idea.
I hope you realise that you are doing the exact same thing the government is doing — assuming that all the objections are irrational or for self interest and refusing to listen to them.
And those “objective reasons” are a thousand variations of “oh-too-many-people-so-i-don’t-feel-comfy”. Seriously, how many of those incessant “reasons” do you really need to hear? Nobody’s saying it’s irrational. It’s never irrational to look out for yourself. I already said it’s perfectly normal human behavior. But, in this case, it clearly is losing the forest for the trees.
Have you considered the reason why people do not want babies is because of the overcrowded-ness? If so, adding more immigrants will only make the situation worse. To increase the TRF, I suggest you read more about what the Europeans are doing, especially the French. They have been quite successful and no country is resorting to importing foreigners to boost population. Raymond, you are just like one of those PAPies who think only the PAP solution is the right one (minimum wage is another example.)
Thank you for making my point. That, to most folks, personal comfort is more important than the survival of your nation. And thanks to people like you, after
30 years of neglecting TFR, our country not only have population replacement problem, but also a huge aging population problem to contend with.
And also, please contact your parliamentary representative in the off-chance that the government has not heard of “what the Europeans are doing, especially the French”.
Raymond,
I am not going to argue with you ad nauseam. Are you accusing Singaporeans of neglecting TFR for the past 30 years? Why not make it 50 years? LKY cared very much about population (wrt race, gene, income, education) and had been tinkering Singapore population ever since he became the prime minister. What you see today is largely the result of his tinkering. Stop the lousy 20/20 excuse, just refund the money!
Yes, please ask your MP to study how the French manages to increase TFR, and explain why the same policy will not work in Singapore.
Finally stop trolling here. You are not going to change any mind here, just like I’m not going to change your mind. Let’s agree to disagree and move on.
@Xmen,
I’ve never expected to change your mind. But for the benefit of other readers, it’s important to expose, for the record, how unreasonable, unruly and irrational some opposition supporters have become.
You have a good day now.
Nevertheless, it’s good that Raymond you are voicing your opinion, even if we are not in agreement. It’s kind of strangely refreshing in the midst of all the anti-govt sentiments online.
I hope you continue to visit and let me know if I’m sprouting nonsense!
Especially coming at a time when the PM himself just admitted that they have messed up because they don’t have 20/20 foresight.
Nobody has 20/20 foresight. That statement means nothing.
Yes but it shows that the government can be very wrong and it is the job of Singaporeans to speak up against it if we think it is heading the wrong way. Else we may have a repeat in 2030 and we would only have ourselves to blame if we just let them do what they want and it turns out wrong.
At least if it were due to citizens’ feedback there will be collective responsibility.
If everything works out, the problem would not repeat. That is, the plan set out in the White Paper is in fact sustainable. See for instance, Chart 2.7, the projected citizen population chart, which levels off after 2030.
And I can’t make sense of what “collective responsibility” means. Is it like a smack your own forehead, kick yourself and “Doh!”, kind of thing?
I’d love to dig my spurs into his hide.
void decker see your consent to share tis interesting blog with you and the other concerned Singaporeans……..http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/…………..cheers
a copy of the white paper should be sent to all households for everyone to study it and a referendum for all to vote on it. simple.
Fundamentally, they just want more money.