GEK 1012 Contemporary Social Issues in Singapore

To have or not to have children seems like a private problem, one in which
would not affect the community at large, or would it?
It used to be a policy of Two is Enough1 to ensure population growth would not
challenge economic survival2. Back in the 1970s, the Singapore Family Planning and
Population Board launched a family planning campaign with the slogan: "Girl or Boy Two is enough." The aim of the campaign was to achieve the target of a zero growth
rate for the population, to allow the building of infrastructure to catch up with the
population size, and be able to sustain and support the growing population.
The Two is Enough policy has had its ramifications on the generations after, and 4
decades after its implementation, we are starting to feel the effects of our initial
intended objectives hurting our population size, this time with a different problem
we may not have enough people to replace ourselves if population continues to
shrink.

1 (Family Planning / Sterilisation Information Service, 1972) Refer to Appendix A

2 (Koh, 2012)

(The Straits Times, 2012)

As of 2012, our Total Fertility Rate(TFR) stands at 1.2, that is, for every two adults,
there will be an average of 1.2 children born to the family, not even able to replace
the ageing parents themselves. In which case, there would be the possibility of a
case in which every working adult would have to support his children as well as his
parents, thereby increasing his economic burden, and of course, increasing the
dependency ratio. With the increasing cost of living 3, and the Singapore Dollar
appreciating almost 15% over the last 5 years, it is no wonder that Singapore is the
6th most expensive place to live in the world4. If left up to him, without any social
intervention, he would make the most practical or economically viable decision,
which is, to have fewer children, or consider not having children at all, if he knows
that he may be unable to provide for them.

3 (Ranasinghe, 2013)
4 (CNBC, 2012)

If this scenario were to play out over the next couple of years, there will be a
sustained decrease in population size. With the first cohort of baby boomers, those
born between 1947 and 1965, turning 65 and reaching the age of retirement, are we
then able to provide for them the necessary infrastructure for a graceful aging? This
is a classic case in which the governments social intervention approach has
ameliorated the initial problem but in the process, has created another set of social
issues.
With the preconditions of a high cost of living, and a declining TFR, this sets the
stage for another set of problems, to balance the aging of our citizen population. At
current birth rates and without immigration, Singapores citizen old-age support ratio
is projected to fall from 5.9 to 2.1 between 2012 and 2030 5, and this would signal an
increase in almost three times the burden on the working adults to provide for their
aged dependants.
What may have caused such changes? It is difficult to pinpoint any single factor, but
it has been widely acknowledged that in modernizing societies, birth rates tend to
decrease due to a number of elements6. In the case of Singapore, we may attribute
this to possibly a result of an emphasis of women empowerment, in which females
no longer are considered to be homemakers, but have the option to contribute to the
workforce actively, a higher expectation of children, in which parents want the best
for their children, and are willing to provide as much as they can for just one child
rather than have to spread their resources over a few, or simply due to the fact that it
has become a new social norm to have smaller nuclear families.
5 (Singapore Government, 2012)
6 (Shrira, 2009)

However, though this may bode well in the name of a more cultured society and
increased standard of living, it also begs the problem of the aging population. The
effects of such a societal change will result in a lack of financial support for the
elderly, and possibly a lack of manpower to support the older folks, placing a burden
on taxpayers and healthcare7.
To address this issue, two key remedial and developmental intervention measures
were put in place, including the Marriage and Parenthood Package 2013 8 and the
Population White Paper9,
The Marriage and Parenthood Package 2013 boasts of a host of incentives which
serve to encourage Singaporeans to form families and raise children. Just to name a
few, these would include the Medisave and MediShield benefits and coverage, as
well as an enhanced Baby Bonus Scheme which comprises of a cash gift and a
Child Development Account to subsidise families in their raising of the child.
On the other hand, besides looking to increase our TFR, the government is also
looking to immigration as a possible way to solve the problem. The Population White
Paper is a proposal to use younger immigrants to top up the smaller cohorts of
younger Singaporeans. From the governments point of view, the aim of getting
foreign workers to replace our aging citizen population is based on a few
assumptions, that foreign workers can provide the necessary skills, expertise, as well
as trade knowledge and contacts to Singaporean companies to increase their
competitive edge in the global industry, fill the gaps for the less-skilled jobs in which
7 (Singapore Government, 2012)
8 (Government of Singapore, 2013)
9 (Government of Singapore, 2013)

Singaporeans are reluctant to take up, as well as provide healthcare, eldercare, and
domestic services to support our ageing population and working families, and finally,
provide for building infrastructure at a comparatively competitive rate 10.
However, though Singaporeans are generally pleased with the childcare incentives,
there has been much public dismay with regards to the governments Population
White Paper, with many calling it unsustainable and a Bloomberg article likening it to
a Ponzi scheme11. It may seem to many, that the governments answer to sustaining
prosperity and economic growth in Singapore stems from using foreign immigrants to
replace the current aging citizen population, in the hopes that these people will be
converted into citizens, and hence solve the problem. Notwithstanding the fact that
Singaporeans are already facing much pressure and competition with foreign talents
in the corporate sector, an influx of more foreigners only serves to reinforce the
growing dissent, unhappiness, and xenophobia amongst the common man 12.
What will such a policy entail in the near future? One can only foresee that the
unremitting dissention might turn chronic, and possibly result in a culture which is
unreceptive of foreigners. Young adults and junior executives entering into the
workplace see the influx of foreign talent as competition, rather than colleagues
whom they can work with and learn from. Middle-aged working class citizens
consider these new foreign talents as threats to their current jobs, as with their skill
level and expertise, they most probably would be able to execute the exact same
duties just as well and possibly at a much lower wage. Of course, the elderly will
10 (Government of Singapore, 2013)
11 (Pesek, 2013)
12 (The Void Decker, 2013)

stand to gain from the influx of manpower to supplement the healthcare sector, but
the common argument is, will they still be able to enjoy that healthcare they do now,
if the working citizens supporting them are now forced to take a pay cut or end up
jobless due to the increased competition?
Is the policy then meeting its expected objectives that it set out to, in bettering the
lives of Singaporeans? By 2030, who do we then define as Singaporeans? Will it be
the Chinese man who resided and took up a job in Singapore for a couple of years,
and converted from a permanent citizen to a Singaporean? Or will it be that young
man who grew up playing street soccer in the Bishan estate? Or are they both
Singaporeans? In the eyes of the government, they are both legal citizens of
Singapore, but in the eyes of Singapore citizens, the former might end up the target
of much discrimination and discontent, and most of it from just being who he is, a
victim of circumstances, and a casualty of the side effects of a short-sighted policy.
Of course, businesses who rely heavily on foreign workers as the main driving force
of their trade, mostly the labour intensive or service industries, consider the policy as
a positive sign for expansion. Such a policy signals more employment opportunity for
foreigners to take up the jobs which Singaporeans are unwilling to commit to,
keeping their businesses afloat, while reaping hefty profits. Most SMEs are more
than happy to be able to employ cheaper and more cost-effective foreign labour, as
this translates into higher profits for the businesses.
Having considered both sides of the story, there comes the pertinent question, are
we willing to sacrifice economic growth and standard of living for a lower cost of
living and a less competitive and stressful environment? The population target of 6.9
million is criticised to be overly rapid, and many wonder if such a policy will put a

strain on our current infrastructure. Former UN demographer Joseph Chamie 13

termed the policy a Ponzi demography which is unsustainable and susceptible to
failure.
There will always be a trade-off between cost of living and economic growth, and a
national referendum could be held to ascertain the general consensus of the people,
before we proceed with any policy. Barring the fact that the referendum could swing
both ways, it would also be prudent, given the current domestic situation, to
contemplate the sentiments of the common man and his views on foreign talent.
Considering that we are an immigrant culture with different races and religions, the
rapid influx of foreigners could possibly have been at a rate too fast for
Singaporeans tolerance level, in order to perpetuate the xenophobia which is an
undesirable yet growing trait amongst citizens. Personally, it would be judicious to
assume a smoother rate of immigration, granting a longer span of time for the
change to be more gradual and for the general public to accommodate.
To this statement, proponents of the policy may ask, will we have enough people to
sustain our population if we are to slow down on the rate of influx? The truth is that,
we do not know. And aside from arbitrary statistical projections, neither does the
government. But we can only hope for the best as the future plays out, and solve
problems as they arise. No one policy pleases everyone. The key to survival would
be embracing change and adapting for the future, yet adopting a sustainable
approach in policymaking with the welfare of the citizens in mind and acting in their
interests.

13 (Chamie, 2010)

Appendix A

(Family Planning / Sterilisation

Information Service, 1972)

Bibliography
Chamie, J. (2010, 03 04). Is Population Growth a Ponzi Scheme? Retrieved 03 20,
2013, from The Globalist: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?
StoryId=8321
CNBC. (2012). The World's Most Expensive Places to Live 2012. Retrieved 03 20,
2013, from CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47761118/page/5
Family Planning / Sterilisation Information Service. (1972). Retrieved 03 14, 2013,
from http://www.tnp.sg/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/01866ae4.jpg?
itok=U2j7rXe9
Government of Singapore. (2013). Hey Baby. Retrieved 03 26, 2013, from
http://www.heybaby.sg/summaryofmeasures.html
Government of Singapore. (2013). Population White Paper. Retrieved 03 26, 2013,
from
http://www.nptd.gov.sg/content/NPTD/news/_jcr_content/par_content/downloa
d_98/file.res/population-white-paper.pdf
Koh, H. T. (2012, 09 26). Is two is enough policy to blame. Retrieved 03 14, 2013,
from AsiaOneNews: http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest
%2BNews/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120924-373460.html
Pesek, W. (2013, 02 15). Singapores Population Bubble. Retrieved 03 26, 2013,
from Bloomberg News: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/ponzischemes-built-on-people-always-crash-too.html
Ranasinghe, D. (2013, 01 30). Singapores High Cost of Living May Come at a Cost.
Retrieved 03 01, 2013, from CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100418370

Shrira, I. (2009, 03 14). Historys mysteries: Why do birth rates decrease when
societies modernize? Retrieved 03 20, 2013, from Psychology Today:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/200903/historys-mysteries-why-do-birth-rates-decrease-when-societies-m
Singapore Government. (2012, 10 29). How does the shrinking local workforce affect
Singapore's economy? Retrieved 03 26, 2013, from Singapore Government:
http://www.gov.sg/government/web/content/govsg/classic/factually/factually_2
91012_howdoestheshrinkinglocalworkforceaffectsingaporeseconomy
The Straits Times. (2012, 10 10). The Straits Times. Retrieved 03 19, 2013, from
Shrinking Population:
http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/straitstimes.com/files/ST_20121010_JHDIAL
OGUE10_3334813.pdf
The Void Decker. (2013, 01 30). Population White Paper is unpopular and
unsustainable. Retrieved 03 20, 2013, from The Void Decker:
http://www.voiddecker.com/2013/01/population-white-paper-is-unpopular-andunsustainable/