Discussion Forum

dpm, before you start accusing or giving any form of excuses, just ask yourself this question, who is the one who caused this situation? who policies is it that restricted the grow of singapore population? whose short sightedness is it that always claim that they plan far far forward ahead of time? who got fine to contribution of singapore population if they have more than 2 kids? can you please compensate them back for your pap policy that landed singapore and singaporean in this situation? now you want to blame singaporean for the low birth rate? please kindly answer all these question before you start blaming singaporean, the wrong doing of the pap in the earlier yrs was so successful that it extremely hard to reverse now and you are at your wit end to find a solution so please again kindly do not shift the blame to singaporean.

How can Singapore sustain its population growth?

if people want to have children, they need to have a stable job, a home to raise their children, and affordable medical and childcare cost (including transport needs).

Housing Minister Mr Khaw has already been doing a good job trying to solve the housing issue. The other issues are keeping medical/ childcare low and affordable, improving transport (cost and quality of service), and improving job security (like possibly doing away with contract jobs).

More "Foreign Talents" (SPR/EP Holders) might lower the birth rate of Singaporeans even further.

Why is ministry controlling the number of Foreign Workers instead of controlling the number of “Foreign Talents” (SPR/EP Holders)? The real issue in Singapore is that there could be too many “FTs” in Singapore which is not really required as there is sufficient Singaporeans PMET to take up the higher paid jobs. Hope that the govt agencies could focus on controlling the number of FT (Implement quota or higher levy on SPR/EP Holders) and discuss the negative impact of too many FT openly (No Avoidance or Denial). Please do Not lump Singaporeans and SPR together under local residences in such discussion.

To address the low birth rate issues, there is a real need to assure capable & loyal Singaporeans that they would not be marginalize by the influx of FT/SPR so that there will be career stability and fair employment for Singaporeans in the private sector. Without career/income stability for Singaporeans and with a higher housing price which could be partly due to many FT/SPR in Singapore, could Singaporeans afford to have more children in the long run?  Could male Singaporeans who have NS commitment compete with FT/SPR (of the same age) on the same level? Who has more working experience advantage? Does FT/SPR need to serve 2 to 3 weeks NS ICT annually?  How do employers view married Female Singaporeans who need to take long maternity leave? Although unemployment rate is low, how many Singaporeans PMET (who are 40 years old and above) are currently underemployed and could barely support their family with children and elderly. How many of such capable Singaporeans PMET are being displaced by the influx of SPR/FT? 
Are there measures in place to ensure that hiring manager who are FT/SPR, would not be biased (discrimination against Singaporeans?) in their employment process in many of the private companies?  One might asked why are there so many (Almost all) SPR/FT in some IT Dept in certain local enterprises with hardly any Singaporeans IT professionals in that Dept. Moreover, the salary of some of these “FT” might be relatively high too.
Instead of focussing on Foreign Workers controls only, hope that the govt could also implement strict controls on SPR/EP holders shortly too. Currently, can a company hire only 1 Singaporean and the rest all SPR/EP holders?

The various govt agencies including MOM should consider the more realistic feedback seriously.  
We really hope that the relevant govt authorities would not simply do lip services only. Singaporeans First!  Thank you.

After doing what they wanted (diluting the native composition) now then they are starting an official paper on it? Trying to fool us again and again?

I have heard from many SPRs (PMET) saying that they have no intention to convert to Singaporeans in the long run.
They are simply interested in the economic benefits that they could derived from working here and then save as much as possible and would leave & transferred almost all their saving back to their respective native countries when the economic situation improve in their native countries.
The SPR status would simply help them to change jobs easily in Singapore.

To some of them, the "small" additional benefits (Eg: Govt Growth Dividend) for Singaporeans does not really matter to them as such SPR PMETs have relatively high salary and they could also enjoy a certain level of subsidies too.
Would most of them (Above 21 years old) want to serve some form of National Service (ICT, Civil Defence, etc) too?
As such, the govt could consider having much higher levy for SPR or further reduction in any subsidies for SPR.
If they want the same benefits as Singaporeans, then they should have the same national obligation as Singaporeans.

Thus, should such SPRs PMET be considered as Foreigners when defining employment quota or policies or statistics?

We see the PRs as foreigners but the govt sees PRs as Singaporeans?

Mr. Teo,

Singapore can "develop a strategy that will produce a sustainable population which will ensure the country thrives as well as meets its people's aspirations in the future" only when our leaders regain our trust. If not the PMO can continue to dream on while the public outcry over our population policy escalates. By then, you leaders will be responsible for all that is going to happen. Hope you know your position and do the best for Singaporeans and Singapore.

All the best.

Fat MaMa

Hello

Most if not all of us do agree we need foreign workers of various levels (skills, knowledges, experiences, etc) but the only concern is the controlling and reviewing process really need to be vastly improved. It's very difficult to ask all companies not to take hiring cost as the main hiring criteria but much have to do on approving those who were presented to the authorities, especially when foreign certificates are involved.

"Government is studying ways to develop a strategy that will produce a sustainable population which will ensure the country thrives as well as meets its people's aspirations in the future".

This is an under-statement. The government strategy is always a Triple- Win approach that must feed monumental GDP results. DPM Teo wants to ensure the country "thrives" to meet People (not Citizen's) aspirations!

On the other hand, Australia defines their sustainable population as Better (likely referring to lifestyle ie commmuting, health standards . . etc), not Bigger and aligning social responsibility to care for mother earth.

Such a vast difference, eh?

The number of immigrants brought in is way above the shortfall in babies. Is the govt planning to get born-and-bred Singaporeans replaced?

I think government had neglected the fact that alot of singaporean couples do want children but because most of us married later in life, hence our chances of conceiving a baby had gone down significantly. My hubby and i have been trying for a baby for quite some time but we havent had any luck yet. I do know there are alot of couples like us. So how can government help us? Subsidised IVF?

I'm glad to know that from April, my foreign wife who has not been granted citizenship or PR will be able to stay here longer (three years instead of one year) under the Long Term Visit Pass Plus or LTVP+ scheme.

We were married in 1991, have 2 kids, eldest daughter is 18+ and younger son is 15+. She has been granted Long Term Visit Pass and renerwable yearly at a "cost". I hope the renewable fee for LTVP+ scheme would be affordable and not be too expensive.
 
I had applied for her PR in 3 occassions but were not approved. No reasons given.

It seems that the govt hardly discuss on the issue of having too many FT (SPR/EP) in Singapore. Most of the controls is relating to FW.

Since it is not an election year, we would like to find out whether the ruling party intends to continue the high growth of FT (SPR/EP holders), regardlessly *****ether it would cause more social problems, racial integration problems, safety issue, certain foreign hirer discrimination and PMET employment issue. Please clarify.

What is the population strategy?
Continue to increase the growth of FT (SPR/EP Holders) OR to increase the growth of loyal & committed Singaporeans?
In order to allow Singaporeans with National Service Obligation to compete on a fairer ground especially in the private sector, will the govt consider implementing quotas or higher levy on SPR/EP Holders similar to SPass or Work Permit?

Don't even think of a sustaining  population using foreigners and PRs.  It is a quick fix to long term suffering of true blue Singaporeans who have to serve national service and no homeland elsewhere to turn too when cost of living here gets unbearable.

Overpopulation depends on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources.
It also depends on the way resources are used and distributed.

The resources to be considered include
clean water,

clean air,

food,

housing,

transport,

medical care,

education,

energy supplies,

waste disposal,

sewage treatment,

and JOBS.

Overpopulation of foreigners in Singapore  places stress on the basic life sustaining resources, leading to a diminished quality of life, more social problems and unrest.

Much dissatisfaction resulted over the cause of overpopulation by immigration of foreigners will result in the people voting out the PAP Government in the next general election.

The govt screwed up our lives and made life unsustainable for true-blue Singaporeans and now you are asking a silly question. We will definitely not accept such huge number of PRs and foreigners flooding our homeland.

From DPM’s speech “We have invested sizeable resources to support Singaporeans in getting married and having children and these have just been put in place in recent years. So I think we should wait and see the impact of these major measures that have been taken.”

>>> I feel the question still remains ‘what is needed’ because what has been done has not worked. Maybe the problem requires 100% more than has been allocated. Or maybe 0% more if used in the right places.
 
From DPM’s speech “Ultimately, it is the values and social attitudes of Singaporeans in their 20s, 30s and 40s which will determine whether they decide to marry and have children.”

>>> My belief is that Singaporeans are a pragmatic lot. If I was single considering marriage, cost of housing is top on my mind. Khaw Boon Wan has been doing a lot in this area since he took over, kudos to him. If I was married considering kids, cost of a car to reach childcare options is paramount. More than the cost of a good childcare centre, one can pay over S$70k and be nowhere near owning a car to ferry a baby to childcare support. If anyone thinks travelling e.g from northeast (punggol) to east (bedok) before going to work in the central area is ‘possible’ by public transport at peak hour with a baby stroller, please share.

Sure it is ‘possible’, just a matter of how much time it takes, but we all know that time is money - time on the road is an economic wastage. Sure it is ‘possible’, just force the stroller on board and keep the baby quiet throughout the trip, but those of us who take the trains during peak hour know how much space there really is during peak hours. Sure it is ‘possible’, just make the multiple connections via bus routes with baby plus stroller in tow.

Some may ask why not choose a childcare facility close to home? Are all centres at void decks able to care for infants, when mothers go back to work (max 4 months). If an infant care near the work place is able to(which solves the issue to pick up before centres close), how does one get the baby and stroller on the train during peak hour? And just pray that the work place is directly linked to the train network, otherwise, lugging the baby and stroller onto a bus is not a joke for one person.

Transport and childcare support are inter-related when you get down to the details of considering a baby. If it is not feasible to get sufficient good quality infant care where people work, then it makes sense to consider the high cost of transporting a baby to good quality infant care.