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 Enough[footnoteRef:1] to ensure population growth would not challenge economic survival[footnoteRef:2]. 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. [1: (Family Planning / Sterilisation Information Service, 1972) Refer to Appendix A] [2: (Koh, 2012)]

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. (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[footnoteRef: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 world[footnoteRef:4]. 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[footnoteRef:5], and this would signal an increase in almost three times the burden on the working adults to provide for their aged dependants. [5: (Singapore Government, 2012)]

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 elements[footnoteRef:6]. 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. [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 healthcare[footnoteRef:7]. [7: (Singapore Government, 2012)]

To address this issue, two key remedial and developmental intervention measures were put in place, including the Marriage and Parenthood Package 2013[footnoteRef:8] and the Population White Paper[footnoteRef:9], [8: (Government of Singapore, 2013)] [9: (Government of Singapore, 2013)]

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 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[footnoteRef:10]. [10: (Government of Singapore, 2013)]

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 scheme[footnoteRef:11]. 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[footnoteRef:12]. [11: (Pesek, 2013)] [12: (The Void Decker, 2013)]

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 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[footnoteRef:13] termed the policy a Ponzi demography which is unsustainable and susceptible to failure. [13: (Chamie, 2010)]

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.

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

BibliographyChamie, J. (2010, 03 04). Is Population Growth a Ponzi Scheme? Retrieved 03 20, 2013, from The Globalist: http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321CNBC. (2012). The World's Most Expensive Places to Live 2012. Retrieved 03 20, 2013, from CNBC: http://www.cnbc.com/id/47761118/page/5Family Planning / Sterilisation Information Service. (1972). Retrieved 03 14, 2013, from http://www.tnp.sg/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/01866ae4.jpg?itok=U2j7rXe9Government of Singapore. (2013). Hey Baby. Retrieved 03 26, 2013, from http://www.heybaby.sg/summaryofmeasures.htmlGovernment of Singapore. (2013). Population White Paper. Retrieved 03 26, 2013, from http://www.nptd.gov.sg/content/NPTD/news/_jcr_content/par_content/download_98/file.res/population-white-paper.pdfKoh, 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.htmlPesek, W. (2013, 02 15). Singapores Population Bubble. Retrieved 03 26, 2013, from Bloomberg News: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-14/ponzi-schemes-built-on-people-always-crash-too.htmlRanasinghe, 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/100418370Shrira, 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/history-s-mysteries-why-do-birth-rates-decrease-when-societies-mSingapore 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_291012_howdoestheshrinkinglocalworkforceaffectsingaporeseconomyThe 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_JHDIALOGUE10_3334813.pdfThe 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-and-unsustainable/