An ageing population is a triumph of development.

‘We should stop seeing elderly Singaporeans as just a drain on our economy and as a hindrance to our goal to keep Singapore dynamic. Older Singaporeans have much to offer us, and not all of it can be measured in economic terms.

In fact, our elderly Singaporeans are essential to maintaining a Singapore core. Older Singaporeans are custodians of culture and, as some have suggested, can be employed in schools to teach subjects such as social studies and national education, or encouraged to volunteer to do so. This is also a way of encouraging cross-generational sharing and learning, particularly in a society where family trends are shifting and there may be less opportunities for inter-generational sharing within the family.’….

I like this part of Chen Show Mao’s paper. The senior citizens are not a waste or rubbish waiting to be thrown away. Many are a store house of information and history. The accumulated experience in them is wisdom that cannot be found in the text books.

And with today’s medical advancement and the quality of life, many are very healthy and can go on till 70 or 80. I see myself going on to 70 without much stress. And many of the seniors are in such shape but thinking that their days are over, as society or govt has so fixed, and thus wasting their times in club houses or playing golf. Many can still be gainfully employed if they so choose.

The employment policies of the govt and private organizations, public and private institutions, should cater for this mindset change to welcome more seniors back to the work force. Many are financially sufficient and do not need abundance of money to work. A decent salary will be enough to keep them happy. By so doing, the labour cost could be lowered and more seniors would be independent instead of being a liability. And there is lesser need for foreigner to support a bigger ageing population when more are supporting themselves. When seniors are working till 70 or 80, they are economically active and contributing and supporting the economy as well. Isn’t that good?

There must be a serious conviction and commitment to restructure the workforce, to retain more people in the workforce for as long as possible. After all we have become an economic animal and working to death is our new mantra. Just look at the cleaners in the foodcourt will do. This, couple with the savings in their CPF or in their bank accounts or assets, the data on ageing population to be supported by a bigger and younger pool of workforce, particularly the PMETs, and that’s what our seniors will be as we move ahead, is thus misleading. There are many PMET jobs that are not directly related to ageing. The new seniors are knowledge based seniors. Many are armed with professional and tertiary degrees and wide ranging skills and knowledge. They are no longer the artisans or coolies of the past.

Think sinkie first and as the WP suggested, think of tapping the pool of the seniors and those females that can participate in the economy. Cut down on the one track mind of relying on foreigners. It is a drug, a bad habit. Kick the habit. Don’t be lazy, think harder.

Pro Sinkie or pro foreigner policies better

The WP proposal put up by Chen Show Mao came under immediate attack by the PAP bench. The WP’s proposal is basically to tap on the big pool of unemployed or underemployed Sinkies to the sum of 1.2m people. These people can go to waste, remain unemployed or underemployed but could be economically productive if they are returned to the workforce. What is so wrong with this? Why ignore them totally?

The PAP’s White Paper is about bringing in more foreigners, diluting the Sinkie element to about 50% by 2030. Between the two proposals, which one is more pro Sinkie and which is more pro foreigner?

Can the WP proposal work, fully, partially, it would mean more Sinkies in the workforce and lesser need to import more foreigners. Why can’t the PAP look into it to see if there are some merits and useful recommendations that can be incorporated into the bigger plan? Why must it be rejected lock, stock and barrel? NG!

Can the PAP proposal be moderated? Is it a no way out option that without the huge influx of foreigners, it cannot work? The foreigner content seems to be the core of the future workforce. And the foreigners are really here to improve the core of Sinkies by reducing the percentage of Sinkies in the country? I have a bit of problem trying to disentangle the logic or fallacy of the arguments.

The wayang in Parliament

The WP has stoically spoken against the White Paper but still conceded to 5.9m people. Several PAP MPs also spoken against the 6.9m population. Among the notables who were not in favour are Christopher De Souza, Arthur Fong and Seah Kian Peng who spoke out strongly about the population projection. Inderjit Singh also wanted the Govt to take a breather to solve the present cumulated problems before embarking on such an ambitious projection. There are more than 40 PAP MPs who are scheduled to speak on the subject.

This White Paper is a good test case to see how independent PAP MPs could be from party stand and whether they can be their own men or women, to speak and vote against party position. The proof is in the pudding. If they are only able to speak but still got to vote along party line, then in the future no PAP candidate should feel so free to declare he is an independent man and would stand on his beliefs, values and principles, even voting against the party if he feels strongly against an issue.

We have seen four PAP MPs so far, and may there be more to come, and the findings could be based on a larger sample size.

97% responded to Poll on the 6.9m population

621 bloggers have voted in the one week Poll on whether they are for or against the 6.9m population in the White Paper. 604 said no, 15 said yes, and 2 said dunno. If this sample is a true representation of the people’s feeling against the population increase, it means an overwhelming majority of the citizens opposed such a big population for the country. And the respondents here are not the unthinking and uneducated Ah Pek and Ah Mah but well read and mostly well informed PMETs.

From feedbacks in cyberspace, not much in the main media, and even from what some MPs in Parliament said, including those from the PAP, the majority of the citizens is against this move. Would the Govt take heed of the citizens’ position and make amendments to the White Paper? Though the Govt is claiming that this is only a number for the planners, it has not come up with a target population size for the people to take note. What is the number that the Govt is working on?

The WP has spoken that it does not support 6.9m but maybe 5.9m. What Govt is avoiding to say is the optimum population size that it wants for the island. The undertone in the White Paper is that 6.9m is workable even if it is the worst case scenario. The infrastructure is being prepared for 6.9m.

Can the people have a say in the final number? Would the Govt want to ask the people, in a referendum perhaps, on what is the number that the people want and abide by the wishes of the people? Be it 5m, 6m or 7m, these are numbers that can be workable and can be the parameters for the restructuring of the economy and the lifestyle and quality of life of the people. Any number would have its pros and cons. It is not an absolute good or bad number, but the bigger number is seen as being too crowded and undesirable. The final number must be what the citizens want and be comfortable with, not what the Govt wants.

Would the Govt seek the people’s view and consent? Or it is already cast in stone?

Repost from TRE, article by Mr N D

I have reposted this article from TRE which I think many Sinkies are in the same fate, victims of the Govt policies.

HDB unfair policy: I’d rather trade places with PRs


HDB

There is something seriously wrong with a country that penalises its citizens and fawns at foreigners. One such flawed policy which clearly demonstrates this is HDB’s policy on the eligibility to buy new flats.

Under HDB’s policy, a family nucleus consisting of at least one Singapore Citizen is eligible to buy a flat direct from HDB. This means that a family nucleus consisting of PRs can effectively buy a direct HDB flat as long as one of them is a citizen.

This is an unfair policy that allows foreigners to exploit loopholes in the system. A foreigner who buys a flat direct from HDB (with another citizen) effectively enjoys the subsidy which a citizen enjoys because he buys the flat at a subsidised rate. In addition, he enjoys the novelty of owning a brand new unit.

I am a citizen in my twenties. I do know of university peers who are permanent residents. They are two years younger than me because they did not have to do national service. Now, they are the future co-owners of HDB BTO units because they applied for BTO units with citizen counterparts. Also to note, their income was beneath the income ceiling, one of the eligibility criteria to buy a flat. I myself with my partner, also a citizen, are not eligible because our combined income is higher than the income ceiling. Even in the HDB resale market, we are not eligible for any subsidies.

This is great injustice. While I have spent 2 years of my youth in NS and am saddled with ongoing NS reservist liabilities which is disruptive to my career, I am worse off than a free-loading foreigner. The foreigner pays less taxes because of his lower income but is unreasonably rewarded simply because he meets the income ceiling criteria. He enjoys the full subsidy and perks of buying a flat direct from HDB which only a citizen should enjoy. The foreigner did not have to provide any service or commitment to this country to earn this subsidy.

Singapore is now facing a shortage of housing supply. This policy has to be reviewed to put as many citizens first, and to prevent the wrongful disbursements of subsidies to undeserving persons.

I read with interest about suggestions by the Ministry of National Development to raise the income ceiling for buying of HDB flats. However, this must be complemented with more stringent criteria of disallowing PRs from being co-owners of direct HDB flats. Otherwise, the raising of the income ceiling would also mean more foreigners unjustly enriching themselves through this loophole.

In that case, I would rather trade places with my PR peers. Singapore citizenship would be nothing but a liability.

Mr N D