How to reduce the need for 6.9 million population
You better work (to support our old)
Besides encouraging Singaporeans to have more babies, we should also look into ways to cope with a low old-age support ratio. Here are some suggestions to increase the workforce from within the core group of citizens and lessen our dependency on foreign care workers. Some of these ideas are not new and have been discussed by others.
- Reducing National Service length — Imagine if NS is cut by one year, which would translate into a whole cohort of male Singaporeans entering the workforce earlier by a year.
- Promoting apprenticeships in place of university studies — An university education is important but its value is diminishing as it becomes commonplace. Apprenticeships provide an opportunity to pick up an industrial skill or corporate experience and an early sampling of a career choice, supplemented with classroom courses for professional development.
- Encouraging part-time studies in place of full-time studies — A full-time university experience may have its advantages, but many have also spent an unproductive few years where coursework took up just several hours a day. The same education could be achieved in a part-time capacity while holding down a job. This is not to demean a full-time education, but to encourage more to consider part-time studies as a viable option and change the stigma that it leads to a lesser degree.
- Promoting healthcare and related studies — Healthcare will be a growing component of our economy in coming years, while some fields such as engineering and IT are becoming less important. These days, how many Singaporeans who studied engineering actually ended up as engineers? How many who studied technology ended up losing jobs to those who simply picked up a book on programming?
- Promoting social care volunteering — With a proper framework for training, qualifications and accreditation, volunteer and unpaid carers can form a significant network to alleviate the demand.
- Raising the retirement age — This seems inevitable, even if unpopular, as productive lifespan increases.
- Promoting part-time work, flexi-work and work-from-home — To encourage full time mothers, retirees and other unemployed to rejoin the workforce.
- Increasing social spending — Funded by higher taxes in various forms, or other ways?
These are just some ideas providing food for thought and there is no guarantee they will work. However, the same could be said with growing the population to 6.9 million, which could have serious ill effects. The point is that Singaporeans will be better convinced if the government spends time debating more ideas, rather than jumping to the conclusion that boosting the population by 30% is the only solution to an ageing population.
Two other ideas –
1. Incentives for babies. I mean real incentives. Study related policies of countries that have successful reversed TFR.
2. Reducing emigration. Singapore has the highest emigration rate in the world. Do something about the loss of thousands of professionals every year.
Do we have the highest emigration rate in the world? Kinda surprising cos I’d expect poor countries or those with internal troubles will have higher exodus.
People emigrate because they are fed up with the policy makers.
I’m not sure if numbers are great, but true that we should do what we can to minimise it.
Void Decker — you didn’t emigrate did you?
No, I’m definitely coming back to squeeze with everyone!
Voiddecker
Agreed
Xmen
Incentives for babies no, it should be for the child in totality till at least poly training.
But this would mean society will change beyond description for some areas.
Reducing emigration
It is not possible as there are pull factors at the end of the day which Singapore does not have such as more space and also the ability to move from city living to country living unless we can have ASEAN similiar to EU.
Which creates a different sets of issues.
By the way, are all parties willing to live with disruptive change if we decide to have lower population as this will result in a lot more industries moving away or outsourcing.
and at the same time, are people willing to upskill with relevant soft skills.
[…] like polygamy – Singapore Kopi Tok: Seeing red over White Paper on Population – The Void Decker: How to reduce the need for 6.9 million population – Five Stars And a Moon: No, 6.9m is not target number. Now back to the issues… – Blogging for […]
Onion,
Yes, TFR policies should include incentives up to NS age. (Then you can really justify NS!)
Emigration – Hong Kong never faced mass emigration before 1997. Singapore’s emigration problem started maybe 2 decades ago. People have been voting with their feet and politicians have not been interested in finding out why. (Because they can simply replace them with ‘equivalent’ from China.)
Lower population – If Singapore only takes in college degree holders, the population will be smaller and wages will be higher. A lower population will improve the wellbeing of low wage workers such as bus drivers. (Don’t believe me? Go compare local bus driver pay to those of other developed countries.)
With regards to wages of bus drivers in other countries, stronger independent unions have certainly helped their cause.
Xmen
The TFR incentives are till as stated irrespective of sex till Poly.
Yes, I agree on 2nd point.
However, are Singaporeans willing to accept the change of lifestyle of OECD countries as follows:-
a) Most lunches are either corporate canteens or pack your own as prices rise.
b) Eating out becomes a luxury.
c) No returns from housing investments
d) more disruptive changes where most lower level office jobs are outsourced to other countries and most lower level manufacturing jobs are also moved overseas.
Would like to hear your own thoughts
I tend to agree that for a more inclusive society without a runaway income gap, higher costs in food, etc is a price we have to pay. Personally I think I may just be able to accept that, especially when right now we have the other extreme of high property prices and COE due to the influx.
As for returns on housing, many are already arguing that there shouldn’t be any returns if it’s public housing.
Voiddecker
I have no issues as I am fine with roti and kaya.
But how many do you know will find unacceptable that prices will rise for char kway teow from average S$3 to average minimum S$6 or S$8.
The zhi char will rise the same average S$4 to S$10-$12 per plate small.
Restaurant meals start from S$20 per head instead of S$10-$12 per head.
So no more going all over to find the best food.
Hope the direction will not go backwards than.
By the way, no full employment and no more pay rises of 10-20% on job hopping and no fast promotions than.
I am all for it and this will also reduce the income gap.
You want developed country pay yet demand developing country prices. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Onion,
c) Since when is return on housing investment a national policy? What about stock investments? There is no free lunch!
I would like to remind you that Singapore has one of highest per capita income in the world. In many developed countries with lower per capital income, a burger flipper makes S$10/hr and a bus driver can raise a family. Some food for thought…
We need to feed the housing ponzi.
Teo Chee Hean need to find an example like Detroit where the population actually drops and tells us the consequences there, instead of using Hong Kong and Seoul as vibrant cities that are more crowded. Perhaps then, when Singaporeans know that overcrowding is good for COE and property prices and rentals, the people will see that the worst case scenario of 6.9 is that we have too little people?
There are lies, damn lies and Teo Chee Hean’s statistics.
The planning parameter of 5.5 million, set in 2001, has long been forgotten, having been replaced by the planning parameter of 6.5 million that was set in 2007.
Given the simmering unhappiness with the size of the present population, of which 2 in 5 are non-citizens, and the present planning parameter of 6.5 million, it is not hard to imagine what would happen when an upwardly revised planning parameter is announced.
http://refocusing.blogspot.sg/2013/01/why-punggol-east-by-election-couldnt.html#more
Why Teo so kpo all of a sudden? He also kpo during BE and now about this 7m population. Is he going to be PM soon? Msia also have a lot of population growth for the last decade. The muslims breed a lot. Is there an issue on defence? Can you people still recall how they go around killing chinese?
XMen
Not sure where you got the stats that Singapore have the highest outward emigration rate.
All the stats I have seen so far does not show that.
I’m having trouble posting this particular comment (perhaps due to links…)
There is no data readily available on emigration. There is data on Net Migration Rate, but it combines both immigration and emigration.
A reporter, Seah Chiang Nee, from the Malaysian newspaper the Star has written on the topic a few times in the past.
“In fact, one survey has placed Singapore’s outflow at 26.11 migrants per 1,000 citizens – the second highest in the world. Only Timor Leste (51.07) fares worse.”
This is quote from his Sept 6, 2008 newspaper article. Just do a site search in Google (e.g. site:littlespeck.com singapore emigration) and you will get a bunch of related article.
You can contact him or find some reseacher with access to emigration statistic from UN. But Singapore’s number is bad in any case.
Legalize polygamy.
On the condition that there must be more babies than spouses!
1. Cutting NS will of course increase the old-age dependency ratio. But at the expense of national security. Not prudent.
2. Ridiculous.
3. Makes no difference to the effective size of the workforce (unless you also lower the minimum age of employment).
4. Already tried. ITE and a number of polys have nursing programs (with very low entry requirements). Not many takers. Singaporeans want to be doctors. Nursing is generally considered a low-end dirty job.
5. Volunteering cannot replace employment, just like charity cannot replace businesses. They are totally different beasts.
6. This will of course work, but very unpopular. Do you really want your old grandparents to work so hard, especially when it is so much easier and cheaper to hire foreign labour?
7. This is also Workers’ Party’s argument. But they/you have yet to show how you can mobilize the 1 million able but non-working adults. (maybe they are already rich, so why bother?)
8. Raiding our reserves to support old folks? Not prudent.
2. Apprenticeships are quite common in many other countries and can be an alternative to university, even for jobs in engineering firms, banks and law firms.
3. I’m not sure what’s the minimum age but it can’t be higher than 18. The majority of Singaporeans, esp males, entering university are well past that.
7. It’s not just WP but the govt is already trying to do this as well.
I agree that some of these may not make a very big difference, but every little helps and sometimes it’s also the effect put into it. I think forcing people to have babies is even harder!
2. Apprenticeship is for stuff like sushi chefs — you only need to learn one skill, from one person, and do it very well, repeatedly. Most jobs are not like that. I wouldn’t trust an engineer/banker/lawyer/doctor who is only trained under one person and have no formal degree in the field. Ergo, ridiculous.
8. Raiding our reserves to support old folks? Not prudent.
I suggest you find out how much the “per capita reserve” is. Given the humongous size of reserve, at least according to PAP, why can’t the government spend it on the people? Remember, the reserve belongs to the people, not the government, and definitely not PAP. If it was your personal wealth, why wouldn’t you enjoy it in retirement?
Because our reserves serves a bigger purpose. It backs up our economy and gives us credibility when trading with other countries. Like the reserve requirements of banking institutions, it is never meant to be “spent”. Drawing from the reserves would be a very serious act and signals to others that the country/bank is in dire straits.
You are basically parroting the PAP line of argument. Have you compared Singapore’s reserve to those of other countries? How much reserve do you think Singapore nned? For example, on per capita basis, is 2x that of Taiwan sufficient? How about 2x Malaysia’s reserve?
Finally, the meteoric increase in reserve over the past half century is due to the savings of its people. Why should the country confiscate people’s wealth and for what purpose?
I don’t think you know what the Singapore reserves comprises of. For example, it isn’t “due to the savings of the people”. I think you are thinking of CPF. The Government Investment Corporation does not manage the CPF money that is collected from the Singaporean work force.
(sarc) I’m sure you know what the Singapore’s reserves are! /(sarc)
The reserves do not grow on a tree. You subsidize below market rate loan to CPF, GIC, Temasek, from your savings. You pay above building cost for public housing with your savings. You pay extra taxes to subsidize corporations with your savings (a form of transfer payment to corporations). The list goes on and on… Get it yet?
Even the massive wealth of Berkshire Hathaway comes from its investors.
I wanna add another point. We can also cut the gov workforce into half and they can join the private sector. Anyway, they are not producing much, no whatever foresight, making many mistakes, causing screwed up everywhere and raking in millions. They can join the private sector and help them to automate to reduce their dependence on foreigners and to be better, cheaper, faster since they are supposed to be the best well trained people around. Keeping them in gov is a total waste of resources if they are so good.
ALso can reduce the size of gov buildings such as isatan and pm office. if the pm office is only the size of a toilet cubicle, it will save a lot of effort in maintaining it. the cleaning company (most likely a $2 company and related to pap) involves in cleaning the pm office also does not need to import so many cleaners from bangla.
Singaporeans should suffer the consequences of their electoral choice.
Please let this population paper be endorsed.
Singaporeans are currently suffering from the consequences of ultra-liberal immigration policy of the past 2 decades. Why would them want more of the same?
People can make mistakes, gov especially the very well payid ones cannot make mistakes leh.
Please read Mr Wang (Says So)’s latest entry Feb 6 related to the income of poor people.
http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.sg/2013/02/shocking-statistics-about-poor-in.html
Voiddecker,
I largely agree with you about the steps that could be taken. Let me just ask my own points
1) National service- progressively abolish it as well as the burdensome reservist training and pay for a professional army
2) Along with apprenticeships have coop programs for professional degrees like law, engineering, so that the young kids can have some work experience during their studies.
3) Complementing part time studies should be continuing ed programs offered by all learning institution all year around on various subjects. Further, companies and bosses should be encouraged to let the workers choose the time they study; not everyone’s a night owl or really primed to do it after work
4) Healthcare absolutely; in fact, Singapore should thank the maids and send them home and replace them with properly trained healthcare providers. Given the aging population there’s a huge market to tap. Also Singapore should also encourage the various universities and polytechnics to get into medical equipment design and drug development.
5) That’s complementary to the paid professional
6) No argument here
7) Absolutely. In fact, given Singapore’s small size and internet/communications infrastructureI frankly have never understood the necessity to have everyone at an office at 8 am. There’s a a lot of work that can be down outside the office. HDB need to flexibilize the rules
Also, I’ve never understood how Singaporean who start at 8/8:30 always finish at 6. Frankly, there’s some productivity issues that need some serious addressing
8) Singaporeans need to ask what kind of social spending and how much to pay for it
9) Automate the house. Singapore home are far too inefficient and a real killjoy for family life. Dryers, dishwasher, disposer for food waste would go a long to taking the unnecessary drudgery from chores and making family life far more enjoyable
10) Get tough with employeers who discriminate against pregnant women. Actually enforce the laws and make a few example. A few hefty fines and publicity will be enough for business to get the message. Also if there isn’t one: women on maternity leave will come back to their jobs or an equivalent if the job has been abolished.In the meantime that would allow yemp workers to work on a 1 year maternity replacement
Wow, thanks for the very detailed and thoughtful points!