~ By TOC Editorial ~

So this is the new normal?

Just when we thought our Government had heard  the call of Singaporeans to moderate the flow of immigration, the National Population and Talent Division (NPTD), under the purview of Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, seems bent on convincing us of our folly  with a policy paper (an “Occasional Paper”)  heavily biased in favour of an ever-more open-door policy.

Simply put, the Occasional Paper states that Singapore’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is unsustainably low, and that the solution to demographic decay is immigration.

More precisely, immigration at a rate of 25,000 new citizens a year.

First, two caveats:  the current Occasional Paper lays the groundwork for  a more definitive “White Paper” at the end of this year.  The Occasional Paper is not definitive, leaving open the possibility   of its recommendations  being altered in the “White Paper”,   depending on the severity of a potential public backlash.

Also, it is important to note that increasing citizen numbers, while it could entail the loosening of current citizenship requirements, does not necessarily mean an increase in the absolute population size.

Regardless, this Occasional Paper will be crucial in framing the debate the government would like to have.

To put the “25,000” figure in perspective, there were 17,334 new citizens in 2007, 20,513 new citizens in 2008, 19,928 new citizens in 2009, and 18,758 new citizens in 2010.

Remember, these are the current inflows at which Singaporeans are saying: “enough, slow down!”

The sound of silence

What might be more alarming than what the Occasional Paper says is what it doesn’t.

The immigration projections in the Occasional Paper are based on the assumption that our TFR stays at 1.2. So, on the assumption that TFR stays constant, the number 25,000 is cited as sufficient to stem the tide of an ageing population.

There is no estimate of how many more new citizens a year we will have to admit if our TFR continues to deteriorate at the rate it has been for the last few decades.

Which begs the question: why has Singapore’s TFR fallen to such abysmal levels?

The Occasional Paper would have you believe this is no fault of the government, and that increasing affluence and  prudent family planning is the source of this. It cites similar declines in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan.

While this certainly tells part of the story, what is equally to blame is the government's nonchalance in its efforts to staunch the TFR decline.

The most substantive policy the paper is able to point to is the “Marriage and Parenthood package” introduced in 2001. That year  the government threw $500 million at the problem, in 2004 it tossed in $800 million, and this was doubled  again to $1.6 billion in 2008.

It’s more than a little strange that the government has not realized that perhaps throwing money at the TFR problem is not the solution.

Starting at the beginning

Seeking  the root causes of the population decline begins with understanding why couples have children. Or, in Singapore’s case, why couples choose not to.

The reasons are legion.

For starters, what sane parent-to-be wants to bring up a child who is going to have to face the rigours of one of the most competitive and stressful education systems in the world, the scholastic equivalent of the Hunger Games?

Who, stuck on the treadmill of economic survival, has time to take a breather to nurture the romances that form the building blocks of stable family units?

And perhaps it is here that the recent debate on income inequality becomes relevant: if you belong a low income group in Singapore, how are you going to afford to have children? Would you want to run the risk of your children falling into the same wage rut as you?

Ironically, the government’s “solution” of an open-door immigration policy could be part of the reason Singaporeans don’t feel that the conditions are right to have children.

Much of the economic hardship of today, rightly or wrongly, has been blamed on the government’s indiscriminate immigration policies. They are believed to have caused rising property prices, increased competition in the workforce, and an infrastructure buckling under the weight of the deluge. 

While keeping in mind the caveat that increasing citizen numbers does not necessarily equate to increasing population growth, to chart a course towards looser citizenship requirements before our ongoing national debate on the value of a pink IC is concluded comes across as reckless.

A more practical implication is this: young Singaporean couples are already marrying later and having less children, put off by increasing lengths of mortgage debt servicing and waiting times for HDBs.

With the dramatic increase in citizenship and people eligible to own public housing, this problem is likely to get worse.

If native Singaporeans feel increasingly disinclined to have babies, and the government’s only solution is to replace Singaporeans by evermore desperately giving out citizenship to foreigners, this all looks a bit like a race to the bottom.

There aren’t any simple answers to staunching the demographic bleeding, but one thing is clear enough: choosing the easy way out by importing citizens is as simplistic and silly an idea as throwing money at couples and expecting them to procreate.

The path to a better answer starts with answering a more fundamental question: how do we create a society nurturing, accepting, and adequate enough that we would feel safe introducing a new life into it? 


What are the reasons you've chosen for not starting a family? Please comment or write in to us at [email protected]

__________________

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

打了七场选战没在怕 陈清木:担忧的是人民的性命健康

尽管新加坡前进党陈清木医生反对此时选举,但他表示过去打过七场选战,自己畏惧的不是面对选举,而是人们在疫情下的性命健康。 在23日的网络记者会,针对记者提问,陈清木表示,环境局撤回有关该党成员违反社交距离的警告,但他也指出,这也突出冠病疫情下的一个重要面向,并重申此时大选是非常不负责任的。 “我们理应先为人民着想,不幸的是政治已经超越了所有的这些考量。” 陈清木指出,自己打了七场选战,从不畏惧面对,但自己以百姓为优先,世卫组织早已警告疫情复发的风险,为此此时选举实属不明智。 他举例,选举期间每个人都要前往投票站,一个密闭的空间内投票,即使目前提出群聚限五人的限制等等,但他很怀疑这些措施能否有效落实。 他也证实,环境局已告知该党,本周日对该党发出的违规社交距离警告已撤销。 六名前进党成员,是在周日(21日)拜访到武吉巴督31街第358组屋时,被指违反社交距离规定,被记下个人资料。一名安全距离大使,以及一名自称环境局官员的人士,记下他们的个资。 不过后来环境局澄清,上述人员实则是该局的社区志愿者,或培训为保洁大使(SG Clean Ambassador)。  

Fast-food café at Jurong Point suspended for two weeks for cockroaches and rodents infestation

National Environment Agency (NEA) has announced that it will be suspending the…

审计署点名三部门、八法定机构 出现疏漏

审计署发表的2019/2020财政年度审计长报告中 ,称多达三个部门、八个法定机构出现IT监管、采购和合约管理、运作管理,以及商业津贴项目管理等方面疏漏。 这三个部门包括:财政部的会计署、总理公署的公共服务部和外交部。 八个法定部门包括:国家图书馆局;教育部旗下的义安理工学院、共和国理工学院;环境与水源部旗下的公共事业局、贸工部旗下的裕廊集团、总理公署旗下的政府科技局;人力部劳动力发展局(Workforce);和贸工部企业发展局等等。 其中,国家图书馆局被揭发,旗下国家档案馆翻新计划,75项合同变动(contract variation),有近半都未有给出预估成本就获得原则上同意(in-principle approvals (IPAs)),缺乏审核官员的监督。 审计署在审计裕廊集团帐目时,发现有收据造假和投标商报价造假,该集团已报警处理。 财政部会计署 审计署发现,会计署PaC@Gov最重要的操作系统,供应商可以在不需密码情况下就登入;审核流程也不健全,无法侦测到未经授权的使用。这意味着该部的电脑资讯管理有待加强。 公共服务部…

Embattled Hyflux acquired by Indonesian groups who now control 25% of SG’s water needs

Embattled water treatment company Hyflux has been saved by Indonesia’s Salim Group…