Following Me

Hi. Please do not add me on Facebook as my Fb page is private. Instead, please like me on my public page

http://www.facebook.com/calvinchengnmp

Tuesday, 29 January 2013

Seven Million People And One Soundbite


If the PAP is dying a death from a thousand cuts, the White Paper on Population is going to be an axe-blow. It is no wonder the Government held back on its publication before the by-election, not that it helped much anyway. Again, the problem with the White Paper is not in its content, but how it is being communicated across. When people shoot the messenger, it is often not because of the message itself, but because the messenger puts it across badly.

In the era of social media, nobody shares 41 page white papers full of technical jargon and pie-charts. They share sound-bites. Nobody posts status updates on Facebook with logical step-by-step explanations but instead, one –liners that shout at you and get shared virally. And THE sound-bite, the one liner that is going to get shared and get the PAP lambasted is this one:

Population to grow to 7 million.

Or maybe another one: More than half of residents in Singapore in 2030 to be Foreigners.

Nobody will remember anything else from the White Paper and very few would have taken the time to read it. Instead, social media is going to virally spread this message from one person to another, stirring up emotions until anger boils over and the PAP takes another step towards political oblivion.

People do not understand what it means if the number of Singapore citizens are shrinking. They can only think of the big squeeze that will come from more human bodies on out transport network. People cannot understand how they could possibly live in a ‘thriving’ Singapore, have ‘exciting opportunities’ when THAT headline number of 7 million has them imagining themselves squeezed like rats into a small cage.

The PAP also posted on its website that the three main principles to remember are “to maintain a strong Singaporean core, create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans, and have a high quality living environment.” Juxtapose this to a picture of 7 million people in the minds of people and see if it resonates. See if it convinces. 

Judging from the reception one sees on social media in the hours since The White Paper has been released, it does not. And it will get worse.

It is quite difficult to fathom how one can look at the report and decide that the way for people to emotionally connect and buy into the policies is to focus on the vague motherhood statement “to maintain a strong Singaporean core, create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans, and have a high quality living environment.

Because this is certainly not the message.

Not to me. 

The message that comes across very strongly to me is a different one. If we don’t bring in more foreigners, by 2030 we will have very few young Singaporeans looking after many old Singaporeans. In fact, the dependency ratio is going to drop from 6 working adults to 1 old person (over 65) to 2 working adults to 1.

This is a scary thought.

The message that comes across to me is that the increase in adults who can work is also going to slow down to a trickle – 0.1%. A very small trickle. If we don’t bring in more foreign workers, coupled with our many old people and not enough young ones in 2030, we are going to have 70 year old uncles climbing scaffolding to build our HDB flats.

The message that comes across to me is that even if we all start having babies now, it is too late, because it takes time for babies to grow, and our parents will have all grown old by then. Our population will not only have shrunk, but we will be like Japan where you see more grey-haired people than black-haired ones.

If we don’t convince more foreigners to come in, by 2030 either young people have to pay more taxes, work even harder or we have to raid our reserves.

We need these foreigners not because we are nice people who want to make our home a vibrant place, but because without taking them in, Singapore will literally die of old age.

Out of the 7 million in 2030, it is true that only half are Singaporeans, but out of that half there will be very many old people, OUR old people, OUR parents, and maybe even some of US that the other half, the new citizens and the foreigners are supporting.

And so if I were to give a one-liner, a sound-bite here it is:

Foreigners and new citizens to support and pay for old Singaporeans by 2030.

And ain’t that a nice thing.

P.S.

Even though we are going to have all those New Citizens and Foreigners slaving away to support our old folks by 2030, there are a few critical things that the Government need to do,

1) There needs to be a substantial increase of housing and public transport capacity to support this increase in population. The new citizens and foreigners are here to support our old people, not to push them out of MRT trains and HDB flats.

2) The intermediate step, the Permanent Residents , needs to be monitored closely. For those who are not deemed suitable for converting to New Citizens please revoke their PRs. For those who are deemed suitable but refuse to convert to New Citizens after a certain time span (because they want the best of both worlds, to keep their home nationality and live in Singapore at the same time), please kick them out also. Basically, if you are not here to support our old people, please leave.

3) The government must be more stringent with its immigration criteria. No more New Citizens and PRs working as coffee shop assistants, masseuses etc. If they are here to support our old people, they need to generate enough economic value to not only feed themselves, but also a healthy surplus. So QUALITY immigrants please. Civil servants - please please don't obsess over the 7 million number. It is NOT your KPI. 






81 comments:

  1. Just a quick question, how exactly are the new citizens going to support our old people in anyways?

    If the old person is childless without much savings, he will still have to work at old age, compete with the new citizens in order to support himself isn't it? (those old cleaners we see at hawkers now)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Working adults (Singaporean or foreigners) generate economic activity that generates GDP growth, tax revenues etc etc. This is what one means by the Working Population. Without enough Working Population, the economy will shrink and we will have less to buy everything we need as a country (food, water, goods etc). The government will also have less money to spend on healthcare etc for our elderly.

      Delete
    2. It's not as if the Government spends or will ever spend that much on healthcare or the elderly poor. In theory, it looks fine, but like what has been happening for the last few decades, the growth does not trickle down because our policies in other areas do not allow it to move efficiently.

      What will happen is that the younger foreign-born workers (of high caliber and education) will pocket most of this growth, and our elderly will still have nobody to support them.

      Delete
  2. Hi, Anon 06:03,

    I'm not Calvin but I'll try to answer. Basically the answers to your 2 questions is already in practice today.

    The old citizens (that is, those past retirement age) will not be taking the same jobs as new citizens.

    The new citizens support the older ones via the taxes they contribute, which are then used to pay for the various social and public services. This is what you and I are doing right now (assuming you're also working), and our current senior citizens are the beneficiaries.

    When the times comes when we reach retirement age, it will be these new citizens and foreigners supporting us. Without them...our local born citizens (i.e. our children) will be overburdened by the increasing number of old citizens like us.

    Hope that helps...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Better answer than mine Anon! Thank you!

      Delete
    2. @Anon 06:33

      Cool story... except the fact that the PAP govt spends very little on social and public services to help the needy and elderly. Case in point: the old folks now have to buy a mandatory CPF annuity. There are other examples but you get the idea.

      Ergo, the 'new citizens' taxes support the older ones' argument is tremendously asinine.

      The main purpose of boosting the population is to keep the housing bubble and the CPF Ponzi Scheme going, all potential social costs be damned.

      Sooner or later, the dam is going to burst. That's what you'll inevitably get with policies driven by economics instead of common sense.

      Delete
    3. Working adults are needed to work. If there is not enough people to work compared to people who are retired, the economy grinds to a halt. I think that is the simplest way to put it.

      That said, going forward the government does need to spend more on elderly. Not only direct cash handouts but more hospitals, elderly care facilities, elderly friendly amenities etc

      Delete
    4. unfortunately, increasing the population artificially thru immigration is not a sustainable solution. Getting more ppl in today merely kicks the can of problems further down the road, where the impact will be bigger because the number of ppl to take care of has grown even larger. young new immigrants today will be old citizens as well. We cannot just keep increasing the population indefinitely. As the ex-director of the United Nations Population Division said, economic growth through population growth is like a Ponzi Scheme, eventually, the crash will come. http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321&fb_source=message

      Delete
  3. Right so the answer to supporting pyramid schemes is to grow the base why hasn't anyone thought of this before

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do not disagree that an open immigration policy will rejuvenate Singapore as it ages, providing valuable and important exchanges.

    Of course, the big question is to what extent the government is willing to commit the tax dollars to the so-called "various social and public services", especially for the retired?

    How can we reconcile this with the present observation that more and more elderly people are clearing the food-court table and selling tissue paper? How do we know that we are not already living into the future now?

    TB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I noticed a lot of older people starting to clear tables when we choked off the supply of foreign manual labour. I would rather these foreign manual labour be doing this menial work. I am extremely uncomfortable seeing old people clearing and cleaning. Helping our elderly to be gainfully employed surely cannot men this.

      Delete
    2. I noticed a lot of older people lost their jobs when the flood gates were opened for the supply of foreign manual labour.

      Delete
    3. I don't think our elderly should be doing manual labour :) More needs to be spent on re training them for less physically draining jobs.

      Delete
  5. Still don't get it. Old people today are already fending for themselves with whatever meagre money they have from cpf etc. The foreigners are supporting fancy restaurants and shopping. Neither of which is necessary for oldies. Instead, having more foreigners will push prices up. Look at Japan. Aging population. They have deflation. Exactly what you need when you're old and living off fixed income. That's what I'd rather have when I'm old.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Japan's economy is not only deflating in real terms it is shrinking. There are many poor destitute in Japan. Crimes amongst the elderly are growing. I think Anon@0633 has explained it very clearly already what it means to have a shrinking working population and not enough working adults to support an ageing population.

      Delete
    2. Hi Calvin, as a Sgrean living in Japan for close to 10yrs, can I ask you to substain your claims?
      You mentioned that there are many poor destitute in Jpn. Yes. But suprisingly, there are NO beggers in this country, an amazing feat compared to many devloped nations.
      As for crimes, the overall crime rates went down. I trust their papers more than what ST reported on Sg crime rates in Sg, FYI.

      Delete
    3. I think you just substantiated my claim yourself. I said there are many poor destitute in Japan. You just said yes :) I never said there are many beggars in Japan. And I said crime rates amongst elderly have gone up. This is widely reported. I never said overall crime rates have gone up. :)

      Delete
  6. What a much better and humane way of communicating. The care comes across and not a flood of statistics thrown at thereader.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And who will end up supporting this 7million population of Singapore when they grow old? 14million new Singaporeans? Then what about the 14million Singaporeans when they grow old? 28million newer Singaporeans?

    Maybe we need... ermm... drastic measures *ahem*genoci*ahem* against old people so that we can achieve that really nice "Beehive" population graph in my Sec3 Geog textbook where the majority of the population is the working population?

    People always say if population growth stalls, there will be increased cost for everything. Yes, true, but there is an increase of costs associated with population growth too.

    Continued population growth will NEVER be sustainable in the long run. People have to get that fact right, and move towards population stabilization. Properly managed, a lack of population growth or even decreasing population is never a disaster, but rather success of a nation.

    OK... it is 12.32am now and I have work tomorrow. Enough of my ramblings...

    ~ZL

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tell me, what happens when all these new citizens reach 65 in the future? Even more immigration in 2045? Can someone please explain to our former ex-NMP the mathematics of population growth?

    The falling dependency ratio is due to two reasons: 1. increasing longevity and 2. falling TFR. Even if TFR was somehow 2.1 all along, we would still face a falling dependency ratio. It's much more important to undertake the structural reforms that will put us on a path of sustainable population growth. The keyword here is sustainable. Yes, taxes will have to go up (they were atypically low because of an anomalous large working population); retirement age will also have to rise because people are living longer and more healthily; employers can no longer practise ageism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and that's why in addition to immigration one has to reverse falling TFR so that the problem does not present itself again.

      Delete
    2. Assuming the citizen population had a TFR at so-called replacement level of 2.1 since 1980, what do you suppose the citizen population will be in 2012?

      Delete
  9. The logic of importing foreigners to support old age Singaporeans is ridiculous. We can do that for one generation, but then what next when this bunch of imports grow themselves (and adopt the "bad" Singaporean habit of no reproducing)?

    The way to go is to be like Dubai - import foreigners who make money while they are still productive and then when they cannot work, send them back home. Downside is it creates a transitory environment where you get the feel that everybody is here for the money and nothing else - then again its better than the crappy situation we have in Singapore now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i agree with yr logic. Also, it doesn't feel right to get people here when we need them, and then sent them home when we don't. What kind of society will it become?

      Delete
  10. how about getting back to roots... our singaporeans, engage them to reproduce by lowering the cost of education and necessities, fees for education keep increasing, food price increase, even our transport are increasing. If parents can comfortably support their off springs i am sure they will be more open to have more children.

    And speaking of supporting the old, our nation spend low percentage (4%) on medical care http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/govt-spends-too-little-healthcare-former-nmp-20110315-222620-024.html . You can compare it with other nation, we are providing 3rd world medical care. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS . I personally need some medical device to use in my daily life, but instead of getting the device locally, i resort to getting it in the USA which cost half the price. How is low spending on medical going to help the elderly when they need it and low on cash to pay for them. Dont speak about the 3M , the 3M is only good if you are not critically ill, only required to visit the hospital once in a while. If prolong stay in hospital, medical drugs, treatment and related will empty ones' bank account.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is too late. Even if everybody starts having babies now 4 decades of low TFR will already mean if we don't have net migration, our working population and dependency ratio will shrink.

      I agree with you on medical for elderly. At a certain point society has to show compassion and draw a line underneath self-reliance. In the early days we could say we need to be thrifty and watch our medical costs. But now as a rich nation, we can afford to show more compassion. Spend more on medical care for the elderly.

      Delete
  11. like many others, I'm really curious about this "foreigners supporting our old " concept. So calvin, have you asked yourself why is it that so many people don't understand this concept? Well, the answer is really simple. Because it don't apply to Singapore!

    This concept of the workforce supporting the old applies to countries using the pension system. In Singapore, we have a very different system. A forced-savings system aka cpf. We are forced to save throughout our working life so that the government dont have to do much to support us when we do retire.

    So how much subsidy, monetary support,benefits etc is the government giving our retirees. Please list them out So we come to an objective conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dependency ratios are used not only in countries with large pension schemes. The government is rolling out more schemes as our population ages but they need to do more not only for direct cash handouts but also elderly-friendly amenities.

      Delete
  12. Even if TFR was 2.1 all along, our dependency ratio would still shrink. Our high dependency ratio is an artifact of the high birth rates in the 50s and 60s. To maintain the same dependency ratio from simply natural growth, women would have to had the same birth rate from the 50s to the 90s.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In Korea,

    Opposition takes over the parliament every five years. This was the case for the past twenty years.

    Corruption is so rampant both on paper and reality that most Koreans regret the assasination of Korea's former "dictator" Park Jung Hee, who increased Korea's GDP by a thousand fold in a short span of ten years- to the point people have voted for the "dictator's daughter" recently as President to fix the goverment.

    ~80% of graduates cannot find a job within a year of graduation, because the link between local graduates and industry employment was broken off to prevent corruption. In the end, the opposite happened. Getting employment is so "fair" that only graduates who are both smart and "pretty" are hired. This is the main reason why cosmetic surgery is rampant in Korea, even among guys these days. People and companies become extremely superficial when left to free market to decide everything. It is a broken system no politician has enough clout to even talk about it, let alone fix it. Ever.

    Singapore, I worry for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the insights. Are you a Korean living here in Singapore? Many people do not easily see the deeper issues currently in Korea. They are more likely to see the good news that folks are reporting, eg. their GDP is growing, their MNC (Samsung, LG, Hyundai and etc) are kicking butts, their account deficit surplus is growing and etc. Of course, every country has their unique and specific deeper issues. Having said it, there are still many good things that Singapore can learn from Korea.

      An Observer

      Delete
  14. By the logic of local original Singaporean will become half of the 7 millions people and the '2 working adults will be supporting 1 elderly' phenomenon, I believe there would not be enough youngsters age 18 to 21 to serve armies to protect the 7 millions population. Shouldn't the number of armies be proportional to the number of population just like the more of population, the more of doctors we need? And you must be aware that only Singaporeans do NS and not new citizen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One cannot just look at Population Growth alone to solve these inter-connected problem. NS for PR and New Citizen, welfare for elderly, MediSafe or universal healthcare and etc, have to be simultaneously changed.

      Otherwise, we would repeat same mistakes PAP team made with present issues of transport capacity, housing and etc, when PAP team lack of foresight in 2004/2005 and lack of actions, when they turn on the foreigners import.

      Observer.

      Delete
  15. I'd like to point out that while a robust GDP is an indicator of higher economic activity, and thus indicates a *potential* for greater prosperity and more benefits for the elderly and the general population, all that is dependent on us having developed a system for equitable distribution of that prosperity, which is by no means a given. The incumbent government's pathological fear of welfarism and the propensity for 'meritocracy' to funnel prosperity upwards rather than downwards or sideways suggests that our new residents will be primarily supporting and paying for THEMSELVES.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think your explanation on this policy is more concise and impactful than how DPM delivered the white paper.

    However, the timing is just wrong. 3 days after Singaporeans gave the PAP a 2nd notice that we are unhappy, the PAP gives the sandwiched class a big slap. The median Singaporeans make $3k per month and is not keeping up with cost of living. Adding pp boost GDP growth, balances the working to non-working population ratio but does not make the quality of life better. In fact, it makes it worst when the infrastructure becomes overstretched. It doesn't take much to make the silent majority of Singaporeans happy. In a few years, with all the infrastructure work in progress, things will get better. Re-starting the immigration policy later and stretching it out will allow time for digestion.

    In typical PAP style, it is the high intellect and cold-hearted policy that triumphs over the heart and care. The PAP should at least show some sincerity and willingness to listen to the people.

    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  17. thanks Calvin.
    Agree with your views especialy the critical tings garmen must do.
    The dependency ratio issue was in discusion since the 70s when I was in my thirties. I then planned to be financially independent and have achieved that goal. one lesson therefore is with such information plan ahead.
    What should be included or discussed going forward is to get citizens--mainly our born and bred here thirty and forty something --to plan for such a future.Personal responsibilty.
    What next say 2045--yes it has to refresh again with whatever the policies. That is the way cities (in our case country) have to exist. Keep refreshing its population. We are after all of immigrant stock. Just was in Kaiping in Guangzhou and visited bungalow houses built by Chinese returnees who became successful in the US (as coolies) in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Woo Mun Choo Rd named after one of these immigrants who migrated to Singapore.Now a a UNESCO (50 year lease from the owners) heritage site. They all have left because it is not liveable.
    Cities to last must refresh itself and people are the crux to its dynamism.
    On Dubai--was there and it is possible because it is an Arab people preserving their oil-rich lax luxurious lifestyle while Indians and Pakistanis (second and third genration) form the backbone of the society as non-citizens. Not a place not a country that we would want to live as a people.


    ReplyDelete
  18. While bringing in foreigners may seem to solve the issue of a shrinking working population by having them support our economy and the greying population, we fail to realise that the sudden influx of such a large number of foreigners brings their own sets of issues with them. Increased housing, cars- the overall the cost of living in Singapore will increase, the increase competitiveness of our economy cannot possibly offset that. On top of that our current infrastructure can barely support the current population size. Shouldn't our policies address that first. Furthermore the stigma attached to the so called 'soundbite' of foreigners outnumbering the citizens in our country will ultimately trump whatever reasons, however legitimate, they can offer. One last point to add, is that the import of "foreign talent" was meant to be a short term solution for this problem which has been identified for some time. Why is it after all the controversy regarding that policy and instead of setting in place long terms solutions, is the answer once again that more foreigners are needed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the import of "foreign talent" was meant to give the local population time to reproduce themselves and setup the future working force of Singapore. If it didn't work out, it's because we didn't breed enough.

      Delete
    2. What was given by PAP team seem to be Population Growth = GDP Growth. Hence, they have a vision and strategy on Population Growth, primarily through foreigners import.

      I have yet to see PAP team sharing their vision and strategy for (1) Economic Growth, (2) Social growth and development, and (3) Political growth and development.

      Observer.

      Delete
  19. Given all the political gridlock surrounding actions to tackle climate change, the world will die of adverse environmental impacts arising from overpopulation and overconsumption of resources, before Singapore can even die of old age. And who knows, with rapidly warming temperatures, the likelihood of a a superbug epidemic wiping out most of Singapore's population in a short timespan cannot be ruled out...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Fudged Statistics at play again: Fooling the people with crooked stats.

    1) Besides war-torn countries and North Korea, there are NO coutries where there is ZERO immigration! All the white Paper stats are crooked to justify the prostitution of Sg using skewed stats with ZERO immigration serves only to show how empty is arguement is!
    Simply because a mere tweak on immigration data and the reason PAP use to justify high foreign influx will fall FLAT.

    It is like arguing that, to justify over-eating, I will say that I will die if I don't eat. To justify over-spending, I say that I will die if I have no money.

    Childish, evil, skewed, and absolute hogwash.

    2) Next, I borrow a line from LuckTan:
    "While it is true that the Singaporean workforce is ageing, Singapore workforce today consists of both foreigners (40%) and Singaporeans(60%). These foreigners on work permits and employment passes are "refreshed" every few years provide a segment of the workforce is "forever young". So the combined profile of our entire workforce is NOT going to age substantially over time.
    Today we have the reverse of an ageing workforce problem that will get worse if the PAP embarks on this irresponsible measure of importing more foreign labor over time "

    3) The 6.9million mark makes no sense. In terms of numbers we are talking about a shortfall of 10-20 thousand babies a year but the white paper talks about expanding the population by about 100 thousand a year - 5 times the baby short fall from replacement level. What is the extra 80,000 people for?

    By pumping in workforce like steriods to Sg economy, there is will be the drug aftermath of structural, social and economical breakdown should PAP carry on this disastrous policy!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The younger generation supporting the older generation is a system of most western countries. In Singapore didn't we have a system whereby the present generation supports itselves by way of having CPFs? Hence government is restricting withdrawal of CPF and even increased the minimum sum?
    So does older generations needs to be supported by younger foreign nationals?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The way forward would be to merge with Malaysia.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1) Did the poster read the White Paper? It lays down very clearly various scenarios between zero immigration, and immigration set at 15, 20 and 25k new citizens a year.

    2) Did Lucky Tan read the White Paper? The number of foreign workers isn't going to change by much. It is the number of new citizens and PRs amongst the 'Singaporeans' classification that will increase.

    3) Accumulated shortfall over 4 decades needs to be made up for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't get you Calvin.

      Base on your reply above, how is it that in order to make up the shortfall of 10,000 babies, we must import 100,000?

      Since your reply states that it is to "Accumulated shortfall over 4 decades needs to be made up for",

      then by this weird logic,

      we will need to increase at this exponential rate every year 7mil...8mil..100mil....since we are still short of babies now. Is it feasible?

      After you play with these statistics, another real life factor is that all these New citizen and people will grow old, and a good portion of the PR will take out their CPF and leave. We have neither address to this issue nor plan for that.

      So when that day comes, healthcare will be more expensive, the Gov will face an extensive loss CPF drawout, and CPF payment will be delayed.

      I mean, one do not need a degree to foresee such senario. Until that day, it is not the PR nor New Citizens, but the actual local born citizens like you and me that will eventually, AS ALWAYS, get the SHORT END OF THE STICK!!!

      Delete
    2. I haven't read the white paper yet, but just looking at the govt produced infographics in Today - of the 1.6m increase in population, 1m (>50%) is gonna come from non-residents. This proportion of increase outstrips the growth of citizens and even PRs. So while the story seems to focus on steady growth of citizens at the core, the main increase is coming from the non-residents. People need to recognize this.

      Delete
    3. Anon@ 0303 Hi the figures are explained in the White Paper. Can I suggest you take some time to read it?

      The new citizens will also grow old, which is why together with immigration we need to increase TFR.

      PRs are an intermediate step. If they do not become citizens, I have suggested that we revoke their PR.

      New Citizens cannot go home because Singapore does not allow dual citizenship. So they are stuck here like the rest of us.

      I am sure Citizens will not get short end of the stick. PRs already are discriminated against for housing, for education, fo healthcare.

      New citizens will be same as us because they have to give up their old citizenship to be one of us :)

      Delete
    4. You must be kidding us about new citizens not being able to go home, right? Have you not heard of this lady called Li Jiawei?

      Delete
    5. She is a Singapore citizen. She is now a foreigner living in China visa-free for 15 days at a go. Any longer she has to apply for a tourist visa. Just like any of us

      Delete
    6. She is working and living in Beijing with her husband. It is not difficult at all to acquire residency in China. Even many Singaporeans have retired to China (and to Thailand and Malaysia). Most overseas Singaporeans are actually based in Asia (SE Asia in particular). Many ex-M'sians have also retired to Malaysia.

      This idea that you are somehow stuck in Singapore once you give up your PRC/India/Philippines citizenship is strange.

      Delete
    7. Yes but she is working there as a foreigner and has as many restrictions as any foreigner has. It is actually pretty difficult to get residency in China, very few PRs are granted. Easier to get a work permit.

      As stuck as you and me. We can also go try to work in another country but to permanently live there, you and I will have to apply to migrate to another country. We only have 1 passport and thats Singapore's. If we want another, we have to find another country who wants us as a new citizen.

      Delete
  24. "If you're not here to support our old people, please leave!" Yes, say that while you're draw talents from outside. Who and what the fuck is Singapore or Singaporeans again??

    The WORLD owes Singapore something? Talk about sinkie sense of entitlement. No wonder you're hated by all your neighbours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No the world does not owe Singapore anything. However, as a sovereign nation, Singapore is well within her rights to pick and choose who she wants, and doesn't want, to remain within the country. Similar to every other country, in fact.

      Please don't go on mentioning concepts like entitlement when it's clear you don't understand what it is and how to use it accurately inside a sentence.

      Delete
  25. The government is only proposing increasing housing, transport system and building of park connectors to accommodate the increase of population from 5.3 millions to 7 millions. Does the government expect people only to stay in house, go to work and having walks in the park connectors. How about other basic amenities such as food courts, hawker centres, shopping centre, supermarkets, sports complex. Is there enough land to have 20% more amenities as compared to now?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Part 1 of 4

    Hi Calvin,

    I think and I believe there are other Singaporeans who share my same sentiments that it is an overly simplistic assumption to assume that foreigner talents (earning more than S$1,800 a month) and PRs (who subsequently don't become Singaporeans), can be taxed to support our elderly whereas in actual fact the working age normal middle and lower middle class Singaporeans (household income about S$3000) are being taxed by these foreigners.

    a) Many of foreign talents and Singapore PR come here because the salary conditions in Singapore is better than their home country. Rather than earn S$800 - S$1,000 at home as a junior professional, they can earn between S$1,800 to S$2,500 for the same job. Knowing obviously that the cost of living in Singapore is high, most of these foreign imports have already made in their mind, the unspoken decision, to return to their home country or migrate to a Caucasian country once they have built up a sizeable nest egg.

    There are many instances where junior professional foreigners, upon landing in Singapore, will immediately apply to be a PR. Once their status have been converted to a Singapore PR after 2 - 3 yrs, they will buy a 3 room HDB flat where they would stay in 1 room and rent out the other room to someone from their country. After a few years, they will sell their 3 room flat with a tidy profit and upgrade to a 4 room flat, now renting out 2 bedrooms. After a few years, they will upgrade to a 5 room flat. Depending on circumstances, some foreigners are able to cut short the process above during periods of fast rising housing prices. When the time is right, they will sell their flat with a tidy profit and move back home or to a Caucasian country where landed properties cost between a 3 - 4 room flat. An entrepreneurial spirt coupled with a Singapore working exposure gives them good credentials to find a job in a Caucasian country.

    The actual tax this group of foreigners pay probably amounts to S$10 - S$15K in ten years, maybe S$20,000 including GST. However the difference in salary earned and profit from rising property prices would be at about S$100,000. I have heard of a teacher couple who worked here for 15 years and left Singapore with an additional S$400,000.

    For PRs from lesser developed countries, their children will also have received subsidised top quality multilingual education from our government schools. By the way, most with male children never really intended for their sons to wear green unless they feel it as a tool to make them mature, due to their own failure to guide them well.

    In this case ordinary middle and lower middle class Singaporeans, especially the younger ones are taxed by this group in terms of higher housing prices. This is a on-going situation which is a open secret.

    If the government assume that they can trap this group of PRs to stay in Singapore longer with rising and dropping property price and the PRs may become too accustomed to Singapore and be finally convinced to become a Singaporean over time, this will be a fallacy as the group know prices will rise with increased population and they just delay their plan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi thanks for your detailed question.

      I wouldn't consider low income foreign workers as talent :) They are here to supplement our workforce, especially in lower quality jobs.

      In the white paper, the government has made it clear that PR is an intermediate step. In this case, I hope they are sincere and after a certain amount of time, let's say 5 years, they should convert to Citizenship or lose their PR.

      At the moment, PRs can only buy on the re-sale market and only Citizens can buy from HDB.

      I totally agree that this loophole with permanent PR should be closed. People should not come indefinitely as PRs. use our national resources and leave when they are done.

      Delete
    2. My apologies for the loose use of terminology but it is very confusing at times as publications use the terms foreign worker, foreign talent, foreign labour loosely in the media, hence making me and other Singaporeans at large to use the terms interchangeably. Greater classification and clarity with communication is probably needed to know which segment of foreign labour we are talking about.

      With the recent foreign labour tightening, I feel policy makers are also not clear and not hearing Singaporeans clearly (due to the lack of common language and understanding on the different foreign labour segments) about which segment of foreign labour influx Singaporeans are concerned with. The inflow of foreign workers (construction, cleaners, welders etc) with salary less than S$1,2000 with no major substitution effect on Singaporeans were slowed and it caused a choke on growth to some extent. Then there was a flood of S Passes into Singapore affecting the livelihood of Singaporeans with salary between S$2K - S$4K.

      Delete
    3. Yes all people hear is the word 'foreign' :) From a business perspective ( I am an employer), I have no need to employ a foreigner if I can find a local one even if he is cheaper since he will have a harder time fitting in. I also won't hire cheaper if he is worse. But there are quite a few jobs in S pass range that we find it hard to find locals especially retail and f&b

      Delete
  27. Part 2 of 4

    b) During the period of increasing foreigners in Singapore from 2005 - 2007, there were many instances of upper middle class Singaporeans staying in Condos or landed property who saw the trend of rising home prices and rental due to increased demand from rapid population change. Those without HDB bought an additional 3 room or 4 room HDB, depending on capability without loan and rented out the unit based on the maximum allowable person per unit. Some bought low end condos and landed.

    This caused prices to rise and the younger working middle and lower middle class are being taxed.

    I believe the first few property cooling measures were meant to address this issue. However, when the cooling measures are relaxed, the good times will be back for the upper middle class again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The cooling measures are permanent as far as I know.

      Delete
    2. Based on the previous cooling measures in 1997, all were removed when the market tanked after 2001.

      When property prices dip, the property developers will be in full force to lobby against the measures, or maybe after all the important people have gone long on properties following the price dips, the cooling measures will be lifted.

      Delete
  28. Part 3 of 4

    c) The Global talents whom we welcome have a similar mindset to take advantage of the situation. But they play the real estate game in a larger way. Knowing that Singapore is a country with less than 40 square kilometre of land couple with an open policy are towards increasing the population, it is not rocket science to know that even if prices fall, 10 years later it will rise back to the same level and be higher after that. These global talents have deeper pockets and with the size of the property transactions, they make more money. Unless they own a Sentosa Cove bungalow with a marina, most would not retire in Singapore. Because of the benchmarking effect of property prices, when these global talents buy their units at Ardmore Park, they will send price signal through Stevens Road, Upper Bukit Timah and finally hit Bukit Panjang to the very least.

    With this population policy in the clear, any global talent who comes to Singapore and not take advantage of this open policy should not be termed a global talent.

    Again, normal young working middle class will be taxed with rising global talents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The new cooling measures are to curb such speculative activity. Anecdotally, I already know some foreigners pulling out of Singapore property market as they don't see prices rising much further.

      BUT you have to also understand that OUR own Chinese people like to invest and speculate in property. It is a Chinese thing I guess :) A lot of price rise in property is driven by our own Singaporean citizens hoping to get rich through property.

      Delete
    2. The smart foreigners are pulling out of district 9, 10, 11 and Fort road area because they have made their money. This is especially true in the last quarter of 2012 when prices hit a new peak.

      Unfortunately prices are upward sticky, with an extremely low interest environment, the price will continue to be high as defaults on loan are low, hence no force sell which brings down prices fast.

      New Chinese, Old Chinese, we all love to own properties as an asset, especially in a land scarce country. It won't go wrong. Myself included.

      But policy makers need to take care of the middle and lower middle class and young adults. New HDB are pegged to market valuations which is led by resale property prices which is driven by demand from PRs. In the last 5 years, I have not heard of fellow Singaporean whom I know who has upgraded from the first HDB they bought from the HDB to a resale flat. The resale demand is largely from PRs.

      Delete
  29. Part 4 of 4

    d) Policy makers need to have beyond crystal clear understanding of the right segment of the talent spectrum they are bringing in. Else, it will result in serious substitution and crowding out effect of Singaporeans in the S$2,500 - S$6,000 a month salary range and hence dampen the ability for this group to find jobs with career and salary growth potential. They need to have very clear scenario analysis using top of the range statistical analytic tools on the possible impact of the inflows from different salary segment, nation and industries.

    I may be wrong, but so far, based on my knowledge within my small circle, the North Asians talents whom we welcomed in throve with scholarship and converted to citizens are mostly families with daughters only. Even then, many proclaim that they want to study in Ivy Leagues, work in the US and go back to North Asia.

    All Singaporeans want Singapore to be a sustainable country where we live for generations. But the recent policy mishaps have not made it easier for us to continue to have this faith to stay here for long. Unfortunately, again it is the Upper middle class who has the greater mobility to move to another country like the foreigners amongst us. The lower middle and some portions of the middle class does not have such a benefit and they feel very trapped. This lack of confidence could be causing them and younger Singaporeans not to have children so that they have the financial flexibility to have this choice. They may not exercise the choice to leave Singapore but they probably want the power to have this choice which is making the fertility rate a tougher issue to manage.

    Having a policy target seems like a sustainable solution for the problem Singapore is facing at the moment. In fact, the whole of Europe excluding the Scandinavian countries are facing the same problem and they are solving the problem by accepting immigrants from the Middle east and Africa region, but give it another 50 years, the culture of Europe will be very different from what we know now. London is a clear example now with a shift toward South Asian culture.

    However, by having a open policy target we may risk accepting the wrong type of foreigners who will come to Singapore for the wrong reason and when the song and dance is over, the population could drop drastically as what happened during the 1997 Hong Kong handover. Before the run up to the 1997 handover we saw many cantonese speaking immigrants amongst us and the property price rose quickly due to actual demand. After 1997, we can only see a handful of them behind. Because of that HDB built more than enough homes and the glut stayed till 2003 or 2004.

    The population target should be kept a secret and adjusted using top of the range analytics with the best practical brains to balance the demographic flow. It should be managed much like the Singapore exchange rate, the market knows enough but the markets don't know everything.

    Hope I did not bore everyone with this long rambling.

    God Bless Singapore!

    Bee Chai

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that we need to be more discerning about the immigrants we bring in.

      But I disagree that many want to leave after especially the rich Chinese people. We are the only sovereign majority Chinese nation with a higher standard of living than back home. There are many things their money cannot buy back home like clean air clean water safe food. Many are here to stay.

      Delete
    2. In my work, I deal with many wealthy and highly educated Chinese. What they say and what they do are 2 different things.

      To assume the China government will not fix their water and food problem by 2030 is an idea which we should guard against, Beijing Olympics wasn't too far away and event. All they need is central commitment.

      The rich Chinese and Indians are here as long as the party lasts. With money, they can own a property in Singapore, Melbourne and Toronto and hedge their bets well.

      Delete
    3. Sure. But the Chinese can only be majority here. It's the only one. And Singapore's quality of life will be miles ahead of Beijing and Shanghai for foreseeable future.

      Delete
  30. Hi Calvin, Just wanted to understand one of the points mentioned above...

    How converting certain PRs to Citizens will add in more value (as in how their conversion from PR to citizen will help the old population of SG).... As per my understanding, those foreigners who are skilled and and are already PRs here, are already contributing to the economy by paying the mandatory taxes and contributing to CPF..just like any other citizen. The obligations that result from converting oneself from PR to Citizenship makes a difference mostly when you are married and have kids, since the kids if boys, will have to go to NS.

    There are some ancilliary benefits for foreigners like being able to buy certain class of HDB houses, certain other class of properties,voting rights.

    I support the fact that a PR if is sure of the country where he should settle down, say Singapore, he should be pushed to take a call on his status here (if he is not deciding himself).

    What I feel is, till the time a PR is paying the taxes and the CPF, and is contributing to the economy by the virtue of his skills.. he is already doing his bit. Once a citizen his economic contributions don't increase in any way, though his commitment to the country increases many fold. Some might argue about them being the new set of voters for the Govt, etc, which I personally dont think can be a driving factor.

    So how the older population is actually benefitted by converting PRs to Citizens?

    Thanks in advance for your response and inputs. I would be happy to stand corrected if so required.
    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Singapore does not allow dual citizenship. So by converting, they PR has made a big commitment to stay here permanently. They will lose their old citizenship. They cannot 'go back home' - even Li Jiawei (see above) goes back to China as a tourist now. This has a big psychological effect on Singaporeans who are afraid that the PRs will one day pack up and leave (see comments above).

      PRs can pack up and leave when the going is tough. I think this is the worry of many Singaporeans. When the convert, they are here to stay (unless they migrate again, which is not that easy).

      You are right about the economics, but it is the sentiments amongst Singaporeans that must also count.

      Delete
  31. In the end, the elderly are used as an excuse to import large number of foreigners. They have not promised anything on the front of elderly care. Knowing how the PAP works, this is another substantial source of revenue. Every election, they will just roll out some pitiful plan full of terms and conditions to buy votes. Isn't it the same case for COE, HDB and GST?

    ReplyDelete
  32. This Government is perverse. It expands its reserves by letting in more immigrants and then not matching the increase with infrastructure. See how the property and COE prices have been rising. And the Government can ensure more efficient use of hawker centres, supermarkets and sport complexes by having the same number to serve a larger population. To cope with the higher demand just raise the prices. Not to overcrowd the park connectors, you tap your EZ link card as you enter and exit.
    My friends, the Government are not bad people per se. They just want to take advantage and when you can increase your coffers by doing LESS to get a higher bonus, you must be nuts to work your ass out just so that you cannot meet your KPI because you put service to your people above your self interest.
    The only way to ensure that they work for you is to vote them out if your life is not improved. That is the only benchmark that matters - improvement to your livelihood and whatever high falutin theory of white or black papers can be ignored. That is the sure way to make sure they don't get to screw you once again.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Tell me something .. these new residents/citizens do not age? A new citizen bring in his/her parents, does that change the working:elderly ratio or just make the problem worse? Those imported in 2002 will start to turn grey by 2030, so what's the solution then, 15 million by 2050?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The rules for new citizens to bring in their parents are very strict. Yes they do age, which is why efforts to improve TFR must go hand-in-hand with immigration.

      Delete
  34. well maybe you should read these two articles and compare to your view as it is, they seems to sound more factual reality:

    http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2013/01/population-white-paper-filled-with.html

    http://singaporemind.blogspot.sg/2013/01/population-white-papertwisting-logic-to.html

    and this too:
    http://singaporedesk.blogspot.sg/2013/01/white-washed-paper.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His analysis is not correct. Article 1: The figures are accurate because it shows the age profiles are of CITIZENS. It is the 60% who are ageing. The profiles do not talk about the 40% who are 'forever young'.

      The 'missing' babies create a shortfall over 3 decades or more. It didn't happen last year. So the migrants needed in next 12 years needs to cover the shortfall over a far longer period.

      Second, SIngaporemind post is also incorrect. Stop at Two did not cause our ageing population

      See this:

      http://www.sgpolcom.com/2012/08/16/stop-blaming-stop-at-two/

      Delete
    2. Other article SIngapore Desk has nothing worth rebutting unfortunately

      Delete
  35. nice writing . very useful post . i really like it thanks for sharing .

    Property in Bangalore | Property in chennai


    ReplyDelete
  36. Very nice post. Somewhere I do agree with your words and research.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hello Everybody,
    My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) +918376918351 Thank you.

    ReplyDelete