Population woes

[mamago]

The Straits Times, Forum Letters


Published on Oct 20, 2012


Memo from granddad: Toughen up on stress, or regress


I AM 65 years old. My grandfather's generation came to Malaya and Singapore as foreign workers for the British colonalists.

My father's generation, as the children of foreign talent, continued to work hard, sweating for their living. I grew up in a generation for whom stress was common, in education and in work, and we learnt to live with it - work took priority over work-life balance and our families accepted it.

These were the very strengths that made us hardy, and made us strive to better ourselves in whatever we did, and able to cope with the competition.

Because we were successful, my children's generation enjoyed an easier life. They now clamour for better work-life balance and less stress in education. So their children's generation may end up becoming less able to deal with stress, and less competitive.

Meanwhile, other countries are striving to do what we used to do. They may just overtake us and investors may move to them, leaving us behind.

If we are not careful, our next generation may find themselves having to become foreign talent in other countries. We would then have gone full circle, back to our forefathers' days.

Is this what we really want for our future generations?

Goh Khee Kuan

[mamago]

http://i49.tinypic.com/f09phe.jpg\">

-- ST FILE PHOTO


SINGAPORE'S POPULATION DEBATE
3 missed chances

Published on Oct 20, 2012
The Straits Times, Opinion

By Phua Mei Pin

COME the end of this month, public consultation on the population draws to a close. Civil servants then start to draft a White Paper due by January to propose a sustainable population strategy for the country.

Eight months after the Government launched a review of its population goals and policies, what has been achieved?

This is what the numbers look like:

Some 2,000 pieces of direct feedback to the Government, which also contacted more than 1,200 individuals.

Four official papers, four sets of recommendations from the non-government sector, about 15 closed-door focus group discussions, three public dialogues and one dedicated website.

And three missed opportunities, based on what this journalist heard and saw.

The first of these involved local small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which let slip a chance to tell Singaporeans how they are hurting from foreign worker curbs.

At one forum last month, Association of Small and Medium Enterprises (Asme) representative Chew Lee Ching was the only one out of 15 speakers to touch on the matter.

\"Our members are suffering a lot because of the labour shortage. They are thinking of relocating or closing down altogether,\" she said.

Her comment drew no response from the other 100 participants, who wanted to talk instead about how to encourage Singaporeans to start families.

Unlistened to, she later slipped out of the forum before it ended.

Forum organisers are reportedly frustrated that SMEs poured out their manpower woes to policymakers but chose not to speak up for themselves at public forums.

At the last and largest forum held last week, there were 220 participants. The only one who spoke on behalf of SMEs was Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean.

He cited an Asme survey which found that close to a third of SMEs are thinking of leaving Singapore. However, as happened with Ms Chew, the broader audience did not engage on this point.

The matter of foreign labour is no longer just an issue for negotiation between businesses and the Government alone. It involves issues of competition, integration and quality of life that directly impact the wider public.

The business community could have and should have reminded the public of the Singaporean jobs on the line should firms go bust because of manpower shortfalls.

SMEs could have launched a charm offensive to demonstrate how the good outweighs the bad for now. They could have bargained for the time to shift from foreign worker reliance to higher productivity.

Until businesses join in the discussion, their pressures will remain an abstract concern for which Singaporeans at large see no reason to make any compromises.

A second lost opportunity concerned economic growth.

A central question of the population debate has been Singapore's appropriate level of economic growth, and hence how much it needs to top up its workforce to support that growth.

The stance that Singapore can afford to slow down and cut labour force growth became a trendy one to adopt at public forums, with several people supporting that view at each session. Not a single person argued for maximising growth.

Former chief statistician and one-time population planner Paul Cheung made no bones about his view that such thinking was \"stupid\" - the damage to the drivers of economic growth would be irreversible in a highly competitive world.

However, he spoke at a separate panel for experts and did so at the risk of public flaming. As the months passed, even this vocal advocate for economic growth conceded that population numbers and growth could no longer remain a purely economic discussion.

It had become politicised and the final numbers had to be a negotiated outcome between the public and the Government, he said.

It was left to the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) to put out a paper last month on the consequences of slow growth, namely, higher unemployment and fewer job opportunities.

At a forum the day after the paper's release, held specifically to discuss the economic aspects of the population debate, many participants did not appear to have absorbed the arguments from the MTI paper.

When asked if he had read the paper, one person said, laughing: \"Is there really a need to?\"

He meant that the forum organisers would surely summarise the paper for the participants.

But his comment also betrayed a lack of interest in tackling the economic dimension of the population debate. That forum was the occasion when many chose to swop ideas for raising birth rates instead.

The Government limited itself to outlining trade-offs and refrained from advocating growth. That left the strong growth argument without a champion, and made for a one-sided discussion.

It could well be that Singaporeans ultimately choose a more manageable pace of economic growth. But without a proper debate, when the costs of slow growth start to sink in, it will be harder to convince members of the public that they took this route with eyes wide open.

Finally, there was a chance in the population debate for new citizens and permanent residents to express their commitment to the country.

Officials who work with companies and community groups say some have made strides in integrating foreigners and locals. But of late, many pro-integration parties have become too browbeaten by anti-foreigner vitriol to share their examples.

Whether it is permanent residents who go for national service, or new Singaporeans who volunteer with charities here, their personal testimonies were desperately needed to remind Singaporeans that these newcomers can be a valuable part of society. That point has to come from new immigrants, not from the Government. Unfortunately, this has not happened.

The three opportunities are lost not only to those who failed to speak up - that is, businesses, growth supporters and new immigrants - but also those in the opposite camp.

On a small island, the fates of all parties are intricately tied up - the pressures of one group, set aside today, will very likely plague another group tomorrow.

If all parties do not have a thorough and open discussion of the trade-offs and alternatives of population policy choices now, it will be that much more difficult to make peace with the consequences when they do come later. It may seem then as if they come completely by surprise.

There is still a week to go before the close of consultation. Interested parties can visit the National Population and Talent Division website at http://www.population. sg to give their views.

But they need not feel limited to that, and should seize any public or private platform available, such as the Forum pages, to air their thoughts.

For those who have not spoken, you still have a chance to have your say in the population debate. For those who have not listened as much, take a moment to consider the other side.

[email protected]

[mum_sugoku]

3Boys:

mum_sugoku:

If it were a good opposition, it can't shrink the population, cos it's already a route of no return--if they shrink the population, the bubble could burst!

But who created the bubble in the first place? Is it really so critical for us to have double-digit GDP growth in the first place?

(Sorry, off-topic again)

Well, that's a fudge of an answer. You have decided to vote opposition and that's it, don't need to rationalize, we understand.

You dun want gdp growth doesn't mean other people dun want.

Not GDP growth but \"double-digit\" GDP growth lah.

Big difference.


http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1113962/1/.html[quote]The annual salaries of senior civil servants are automatically linked to GDP growth. This is because they contain a significant variable portion, which is dependent on both the officer's performance as well as economic growth.

\"GDP Bonus is zero if GDP growth is two per cent or below, but accounts for a maximum of one-quarter of the annual salary of senior officers, or eight months, when the GDP growth exceeds 10 per cent,\" said DPM Teo.

In 2010, Singapore posted a GDP growth of 14.5 per cent.[/quote]http://www.economywatch.com/gdp-growth/[quote]Perfect GDP increase is neither too fast to create inflation nor too slow to create recession. A growth rate of 2-3 percent is considered ideal by most economists[/quote].

[3Boys]

So why must GDP growth be at the % of your liking? 2% enough? Or 4%? What if I prefer 11%? Cannot meh?


Mamago, thanks for you links, I was reading those today.

[3Boys]

mum_sugoku:

http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/aboutusp/newsroom/2012/20120314-BT-Singapore%20Must%20Achieve%20More%20with%20Less.pdf

Thank you for re-posting, read it when it first came out and it makes a lot of sense. But you do have to read it in its entirety. I don't believe it says that population growth CANNOT be part of the strategy, only that it clearly cannot be the ONLY strategy, which I completely agree with. But it is not the same as shielding our workforce from competition, which is the thrust of a lot of negativity for foreign workers here.

There is another great article in the papers today about productivity in the workforce actually.

[3Boys]

limlim:

3Boys:

The value of a robust debate becomes clear. Through the interchange it's becomes obvious where the starting positions of protagonists in this debate is. It may be the case that one had already decided to vote for the opposition, and constructs an implacable, if flawed argument to support that decision. In which case, further discussion would be futile. But it is important to have reached that point of understanding.

In all fairness.. I would want the ruling party to remain in power.. as mentioned earlier.

However, I would not want a situation of absolute power. That's my personal view.. I'm not sure about others..

Even thou the policies may not be extra ordinary.. generally.. they are \"not too bad\" or \"ok\".

But I would want checks and balances in place.. together with transparency and accountability..

Alright, fair enough.

[3Boys]

limlim:

Funz:

I am not asking them to implement anything. I am saying they have not even addressed any of the key issues aside from criticising the existing policies.

They are not even in the position to implement anything.. and anything they suggest are probably thrown out of the window.

Of coz, it fine that many do not want to take unnecessary risk by letting them do what they want.. but at least, let's not say that they can only criticise but not do anything bcoz they are not able to do anything at all. In the first place, they may not even have ALL the information to suggest/develop/plan anything concrete.

Fair also.

[Funz]

limlim:

Funz:

I am not asking them to implement anything. I am saying they have not even addressed any of the key issues aside from criticising the existing policies.

They are not even in the position to implement anything.. and anything they suggest are probably thrown out of the window.

Of coz, it fine that many do not want to take unnecessary risk by letting them do what they want.. but at least, let's not say that they can only criticise but not do anything bcoz they are not able to do anything at all. In the first place, they may not even have ALL the information to suggest/develop/plan anything concrete.

Agree lah. But I can also say that since they do not have all the information, why be so quick to criticise? :siam:

[verykiasumummy]

how have the population issue now becoming a change of garment issue?


i was reading thru the history and…

i mean, the population issue is not something new, and it doesnt just happen in sg… the only issue is that for any campaign or movement made by the garment is supported by people or not…

many says its as though slapping their own faces when 20yrs ago, stopped ppl from having more than 2 children and now encouraging ppl to have more and more… many ppl use this as a mocking matter of the garment’s decision back then…

however, looking back, whether a national movement is successful or not, it depends on the ppl, not entirely the garment. if there are no population issues, i’m sure the NCs rate will decrease right?

[3Boys]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-21/pan-pacific-says-staff-shortage-threat-to-hotels-southeast-asia#r=bloomberg


Excerpted

‘Huge Outflux’
Pan Pacific, controlled by Singapore billionaire Wee Cho Yaw’s UOL Group Ltd. (UOL), was unchanged at S$2.26 at the close in Singapore on Oct. 19. The stock has advanced 22 percent this year and the parent company has gained 45 percent, surpassing the 15 percent increase in Singapore’s Straits Times Index. (FSSTI)

Manila sees a “huge outflux of people” for jobs overseas, Imbardelli said. In Bali, independent hotels and villas compete with established chains for workers, while Myanmar’s nascent travel market lacks experienced employees, he said.

Pan Pacific owns about 30 hotels, resorts and serviced apartments globally. In Singapore, where the group has eight properties including those under its Park Royal brand, the government’s tightening of rules on foreign workers has hurt the industry’s ability to hire more workers, Imbardelli said.

More Expensive
The island city has made it more expensive for companies to hire overseas workers by raising levies, and in the past year it has increased salary thresholds and required better educational qualifications for some categories of foreigners.

After a recent S$100 million refurbishment, Pan Pacific Singapore had to open restaurants and bars in stages due to a lack of staff, Imbardelli said.

Moral of the story? If we don't want the foreign workers, they will just head elsewhere, and boost the businesses of a competing country.