Editorial
Why the Population White Paper is a missed opportunity.
Contrary to the vitriolic reception it received, the government’s decision to prepare and publish its Population White Paper should be seen as a brave, if foolhardy, move. Few people seemed convinced by its arguments, not surprising given that the citizenry’s growing scepticism about the merits of rapid population growth through immigration had been clearly telegraphed in the last few years. Thus the government’s determination to push for a paper advocating reducing the proportion of Singaporeans to close to half of the population in the next two decade is, if anything, indicative of the measure of its belief in the necessity of such measures.
However, such resolve seems misplaced, because the White Paper’s analysis and reasoning comes across as being questionable on many counts. First, it mostly treats growth as a panacea, even though there is the sense that the underlying issues behind the problems attributed to the demographic decline will go unresolved.
For example, it argues that the population needs to grow at a fast clip in order to generate enough revenue to care for our aging population, but neglects to mention how the government will actually do more to help beyond building a few more hospitals. There was no hint that the government would spend more on social insurance to boost the income of the elderly and provide them with comprehensive medical coverage.
Second, the paper gives the impression that the problems that continued rapid population growth entails are being papered over, rather than properly addressed. That has done little to assuage worries that the problems that the voters now associate with rapid population growth will be exacerbated by the plans outlined by the paper.
Third, intangible matters of national identity and social cohesion were treated as if there was some set formula for integrating a rapid influx of new residents, despite indications to the contrary. Moreover, for a government that has made so much of the issue of ethnic balance as a pillar of the Singapore formula, the question of how the balance will change was delicately neglected. Will having a population close to 7 million actually dissuade Singaporeans from having more children, given their expectations that the costs and competition for their children will only worsen?
The government needs to remedy this by focusing on the critical issue: that of Singapore’s unsustainably low total fertility rate (TFR). Instead of dishing out short-term incentives for Singaporeans to have children, it should be looking to create an environment conducive for families. The Nordic countries, which have rather successfully restored sustainable TFRs over the last couple of decades, provide an example worthy of study. They have accomplished this through generous subsidies for childcare, equalising the roles of men and women in childcare, as well as building a comprehensive social safety net. At the same time, the Nordic nations remain the most competitive in the world, with their famously large public sectors gradually getting smaller while still being highly efficient.
Moreover, the government also needs to produce a more convincing blueprint for tackling existing problems, particularly those in housing and transport. The current plans outlined by the paper to expand public housing and the public transport network have drawn grumbles that they might not even alleviate the stress due to the current population. Otherwise, Singaporeans are being unfairly asked to put their faith in a plan that has almost irreversible consequences if the government gets it wrong. This is a pertinent question since the government, despite its frequent boast about its ability to plan for the long-term, quite clearly failed to foresee and plan for the rapid population growth of the last decade.
That being said, the paper ultimately fails to persuade because it treats people as digits and numbers, to be added and aggregated like any other input in the economic process. That reflects the government’s mindset, which is to look at the cold hard numbers while often neglecting the wider social and cultural context that should be embedded in any political decision-making.
If anything, the paper is a sign of how the ruling party lacks vision. The White Paper might have been an opportunity for it to lay out a truly bold vision for the country’s future, one that breaks free of the one-dimensional approach that has (arguably) served it well for the past five decades but is coming up against its limits. It was a chance for the ruling party to rethink its approach to governance and about how to consolidate a still fledging national identity – instead, the paper felt like a rush job conveniently timed for the lull between the by-election and the upcoming budget.
Disappointingly, the opposition parties are just as guilty of a lack of ideas – the main Opposition Worker Party’s counter-proposal was essentially a diluted version of the White Paper with somewhat lower numerical targets. Such are the monuments of unageing intellect, indeed.