Get married and have babies, LKY to Singaporeans!

Migrants are a temporary solution, in the long term, mindsets must change, former PM says

Singaporeans need to marry and have children if they do not want the country to fold up, Mr Lee Kuan Yew warned on Saturday night.

In his annual National Day dinner speech to residents of Tanjong Pagar GRC and Tiong Bahru, Mr Lee kept his message on population simple: The country's citizens are not reproducing enough, and migrants are needed as a temporary solution.

But in the long run, mindsets must change, and the trend of declining birth rates needs to be reversed.

"If we go on like that, this place will fold up because there will be no original citizens left to form the majority," he said.

|And we cannot have new citizens, new PRs to settle our social ethos, our social spirit, our social norms,” he said, noting that Chinese reproduction rate is now at 1.08, Indians at 1.09 and Malays at 1.64.

“So my message is a simple one. The answer is very difficult but the problems, if we don’t find the answers, are enormous,” he added.

Lee acknowledged the pivotal role that work permit holders have played in building Singapore’s infrastructure, and the contribution of permanent residents, without which he said the country’s population would be older, smaller and would lose vitality.

Further, he noted that in the long term, Singapore’s “educated men and women must decide whether to replace themselves in the next generation”. Currently, 31 per cent of women and 41 per cent of men are choosing not to do so, he noted.

“But we’ve got to persuade people to understand that getting married is important, having children is important,” he said. “Do we want to replace ourselves or do we want to shrink and get older and be replaced by migrants and work permit holders? That’s the simple question.”

MSF to tackle problem: Chan Chun Sing

Responding to Lee’s call for solutions to Singapore’s citizen population crunch, current acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports Chan Chun Sing, who will be taking on the newly-established Ministry of Social and Family development (MSF), said the latter will pursue efforts to encourage younger Singaporeans get married and start families earlier.

Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of the same event, Chan acknowledged that the issues are “challenges that cut across different ministries”, and said there are two aspects to the population situation — material and economic, which the government will work on, reported Channel NewsAsia.

“But like what Mr Lee said, the most important aspect has to do with the less tangible... (what) we value as a society — the institution of the family,” he said as quoted by the media outlet. “How do we see the institution, and the family... these are things we really need to work on as a society because it concerns our common future.”

- The Straits Times/Asia News Network

Singapore millionaires who don’t feel rich

Singapore, the third richest country in the world on a per capita basis, may be good at accumulating wealth but it fares less well when it comes to distributing it.WHEN I read last week that one in six households in Singapore is a millionaire in investable wealth, it stirred mixed emotions of pride and worry.

Bloomberg had earlier reported that the city state had become the third richest country in the world on a per capita basis.



Many Singaporeans probably share these mixed feelings, if they could take time away from work to think about it. (More on that later.)

The pride, of course, stems from our transformation from a squatter colony to this present level of affluence in only 47 years, and the concern comes from the high cost of living that such wealth brings.

Singapore is the 10th most expensive city in the world. The two factors – wealth and high cost – are related; if cost of living is taken into account Singapore’s wealth ranking drops to 11th in the world.

Inflation clouds everyone’s lives, unless he is among the 188,000 millionaire households, to which it probably matters much less..

A school-teacher commented: “Being told that I am living in one of the world’s richest cities doesn’t profit my life and the resultant high cost is a blow.”

Last year, the number of millionaires (in US dollars) increased by 14%, one of the world’s fastest growth rates. In the previous year – from 2009 to 2010 – it went up by a record one-third.

Their wealth does not include the value of their properties or other fixed assets. If it does, Singaporeans would be even richer.

The question is: how many of the new rich are foreigners who took up permanent residency here? If the number is high, it could distort the picture a little.

Over the past five years, the number of rich mainland Chinese, Indians and Indonesians who took up PR here has risen, pushing up the price of properties.

Two of Facebook billionaire co-founders, Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin, have made Singapore their home.

I also noticed that the pro-government media has been playing up stories of rising wealth and the capacity of Singaporeans to spend it. It is understandable because it paints a rosy picture.

Recent tales included the following:

> Singapore’s (resale) public flats are worth more than some expensive villas and islands in Portugal, Greece and Spain, as well as luxurious properties in the United States, reported Business Times.

> Rising property prices – nearly 7,000 “shoe box” condos of 300 sq ft to 500 sq ft have been built. A 463 sq ft condo was sold for S$702,000 (RM1.7mil).

> For sale: a bottle of special edition whisky in Singapore for S$250,000 (RM620,165).

> Singapore girl from a promi­­nent family splurging S$200,000 (RM496,252) on a photo shoot.

> Launch of the Singapore’s most expensive car, priced at S$3.6mil (RM9mil).

> A 23,920 sq ft bungalow at the prestigious Nassim Road was sold for a record S$47.8mil (RM118.6mil).

Such stories will likely continue to happen but so will tales relating to the new poor.

Singapore may be good at accumulating wealth but it fares less well when it comes to distributing it.

In fact, what is rubbing off some of the “wealth” shine is the widening inequality between the rich and the poor, an imbalance that ranks a notorious second in the world next to Hong Kong.

According to the Manpower Ministry, the earnings of the poorest 20% had stagnated in the past 10 years, with real income rising only S$200 (RM496) to S$1,400 (RM3,471), or 0.3%.

Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad wrote: “Singapore is rich and happy at the moment, and that’s not good. America was like that at one point in time.”

I know what he means.

A blogger recalled this was what former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said years ago. He said he feared affluence was making Singaporeans complacent.

He said the young generation compared badly with the poorer, hard-striving migrants from China and needed “spurs on its side” to drive it on.

Are wealthy Singaporeans happy? Happiness is subjective, but a Twitter reported that only one quarter of the people are happy.

A newspaper for Indians in Singapore, Tabla, wrote: “They are among the world’s wealthiest, ranking sixth highest in net wealth with a mean value of US$284,692 (RM908,737) per adult. But Singaporeans aren’t necessarily a happy lot.”

Most attribute it to the pressure cooker living, the high cost of living and the education system. Despite what Lee said, Singaporeans work the longest hours in a worldwide comparison, beating the Japanese.

But the country has the second lowest job satisfaction in the world, according to an Accenture survey, with some 76% saying they are dissatisfied with their jobs.

Long-time visitor Brian Nelsen wrote last month: “Where are the friendly Singaporeans I used to know?”

He expressed shock and dismay at the abrupt change in the attitude of Singaporeans towards tourists in the last few years. They appear unfriendly and rude nowadays.

“Nobody smiles or returns a greeting any more. Many are now a surly lot,” he said. He probably had not met our richer folks.

Joyce Hooi of The Business Times wrote: “If Singapore had been a person, it would have stood above the unwashed tableau of Occupy Wall Street, watching from its penthouse and laughing into its Cognac.”

The really wealthy are busy buying up luxuries.

Every single day, she added, 25 people had bought a Mercedes-Benz or a BMW, and a Ferrari every four days over the past 11 months.

INSIGHT DOWN SOUTH BY SEAH CHIANG NEE  cnseah@thestar.com.my

Related posts:

Bridging the rich-poor gap in Singapore 

Foreign worker flow choked in Singapore 

Singapore 'warns' US on China bashing 

Singapore warns US on anti-China rhetoric!

Bridging the rich-poor gap in Singapore

The recent pay increases are seen by some Singaporeans as a step forward, but critics view them as tweaking, rather than resolving, a fundamental problem.

WHEN Cabinet ministers took turns to rebuff a proposal to push up salaries of lowly-paid workers, most Singaporeans viewed it as good as buried.

Given the strict way the government is run, the revolutionary idea raised by former state economic adviser Professor Lim Chong Yah might well have faced the death sentence.

His think-out-of-the-box way of narrowing the economic gap called for the salaries of low-level workers to be raised by 50% over three years, and those at the top-end be frozen for a similar period.

The widening gap between rich and poor is becoming one of the most pressing problems here today. It threatens Singapore’s social fabric despite its strong GDP growth.

To the PAP, Prof Lim’s suggestion probably smacks too much of socialism.

But according to the professor, this land of record millionaires needs such a solution because it has for years been significantly under-paying its poorer workers.

The rich are becoming richer, and the poor poorer, not the best way to win votes.

The Boston Consulting Group said that 15.5% of Singapore households have at least S$1mil (RM2.4mil) in liquid assets, the highest percentage in the world.

But the earnings of the city’s 20% lowest paid had declined during the past 10 years.

The unequal growth was not due to globalisation or technological change, but the mass influx of foreign workers in the past 10 years, said prominent diplomat Prof Tommy Koh.

He said Singapore had a per capita income similar to Denmark, Finland, and Sweden, yet cleaners in these countries were paid some seven times more than those in Singapore.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s response to Prof Lim was a firm “no” and said such pay increases must be matched by a rise in productivity.

That is virtually impossible as this growth slowed to an average 1% a year in the past decade.

However, I’m glad no one said “never” to Prof Lim. Due to the seriousness of the problem, it is unlikely any leader can swear that the concept will not be relooked at one day.

In fact, since Prof Lim’s controversial suggestion, a series of steep pay increases resembling — and even exceeding — his suggestion has been announced — although only for a duration of one year.

Prof Lim’s proposal was for an average of 16%-17% a year for a consecutive three years.

The recent ones included the following:

> SMRT announced that it was raising bus drivers’ salaries by 35%, but for a six- instead of five-day week.

> Public health workers, including nurses, will have had increases of up to 17% from last month.

> Social workers can expect pay rises of up to 15% this year.

> NTUC, the large union movement, announced that non-executive staff will get up to 15.8% in wage increment and adjustment.

> Several thousand junior and mid-level civil servants will get pay increases of between 5% and 15% this year.

The increases are, of course, unconnected to Prof Lim’s proposal but some observers believe the government is worried over, and may be responding to, the growing public unhappiness about stagnant salaries.

In its way, the job market seems to be lending support to Prof Lim’s proposed measures. The economic imbalance is the second worse in the world, next only to Hong Kong.

But Premier Lee disagreed.

“Although we want our workers to earn more, we cannot simply push up Singaporean wages as we would like,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

“The only way for our workers to do better is to compete on knowledge and innovation, upgrade our skills, and stay ahead of the pack.”

Critics, however, say this is near crisis time and it is not sufficient for the premier to stick to a conventional approach.

Meanwhile, the national wages advisory council, of which Prof Lim is former chairman, has for the first time since 1984 recommended a minimum quantum of pay raise.

It suggested S$50 (RM120) plus an unspecified percentage for workers earning less than S$1,000 (RM2,400) a month.

Although critics say it is a far cry from what is needed, it is apparently aimed at drawing a minimum line.
The authorities have always rejected calls for a minimum wage in Singapore.

Ryan Ong of Yahoo Moneysmart commented: “No offence and all, but that’s about as helpful as a pair of blunt scissors.

“I guarantee a whole bunch of companies are already reading ‘unspecified percentage’ as ‘nothing’.”

Some Singaporeans welcome the recent pay increases as a step forward but critics view them as tweaking, rather than resolving, a fundamental problem.

But as the debate flows, a dark shadow is appearing on the horizon that can worsen the situation and threaten any prospect of strong pay increases.

The global economy appears to be slowing down as it faces woes from Europe, which Singapore has strongly invested in, and an economic slowdown in China.

More employers are likely to become more concerned about avoiding being pulled down rather than how much to raise staff salaries.

A local daily reported that some industries, including shipping, are already feeling the pinch from the slowing Western markets.

Some are planning measures to reduce costs or retrench workers as a short term solution, TODAY reported.

This puts the squeeze on the government’s social compact of promising jobs and a reasonable living standard to Singaporeans in return for their political support.

The grounds at home and abroad are becoming tougher for everyone.

INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE

cnseah05@hotmail.com 

Related posts:

Foreign worker flow choked in Singapore

Mar 17, 2012

Singapore 'warns' US on China bashing

Feb 24, 2012

Singapore warns US on anti-China rhetoric!

Feb 11, 2012 

Foreign worker flow choked in Singapore

INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH By SEAH CHIANG NEE

From July, manufacturing firms will see their quota of foreign workers reduced from 65% to 60%, while the quota in services will drop from 50% to 45%.



FOR the first time in years, Singapore is cutting back on the intake of foreign workers to placate widespread public resentment.

“In the next five years, we have decided to tier down our need for foreign workers,” declared the strategy’s architect, former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew.

It was a tacit admission that its ambitious immigration strategy had run into trouble among Singaporeans and needed to be cut back – at least temporarily.

Lee’s son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, added: “We should consolidate, slow down the pace. We can’t continue going like this and increasing our population 100,000 to 150,000 a year, indefinitely.

“And we should give Singaporeans time to adjust, and our society time to settle, and integrate better the new arrivals.”

He mentioned no time-span for the reduction, but Lee Senior spoke of five years, evidently to take into account the next general election due in 2016-17.

A strong anti-People’s Action Party vote could make the policy more uncertain. But if it performs well, the doors may be opened even wider, according to analysts.

This in effect means the next election will serve as a referendum on future immigration.

The cutback is as follows: From July, manufacturing firms will have their quota of foreign workers reduced from 65% to 60%, while the quota in services will drop from 50% to 45%.

This was announced by Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam in his recent Budget speech.

He also said that the dependency ratio ceiling for “S” Pass holders – mainly mid-level skilled foreigners – would also be reduced to 20% from 25%. This affects middle-class Singaporeans most of all.

“The number of foreign workers has risen 7.5% each year for the last two years and account for a third of the city-state’s work force,” Tharman told parliament.

“We have to reduce our dependence on foreign labour. It’s not sustainable. It will test the limits of our space and infrastructure. A continued rapid infusion of foreign workers will also inevitably affect the Singaporean character of our society.”

A number of foreigners here – especially permanent residents – were a little rattled by the move, particularly Indians and Filipinos.

One family of PRs contacted me to ask if I thought this was prelude to a reversal of policy or a start of worse things to come.

The government has said those who are already here would not be affected.

There are other reasons for the review. One is a feared economic decline ahead and an expected drop in employment chances.

Another is the sustained drop in productivity growth from 11% (in 2009) to 1% last year, partly blamed on the import of too many cheap, low-skilled workers.

During the past year, the authorities had already been tightening rejection rates. The rise in foreigners slowed from 4.8% to 4.1%, and PR growth also slowed. From 6% a year from 2005, it rose by only 1.5% this year.

Lee Kuan Yew, who had long been the staunchest champion of the immigration policy, appeared to have softened his stand a year ago.

He said then: “We’ve grown in the last five years by just importing labour. Now, the people feel uncomfortable, there are too many foreigners.

“Trains are overcrowded with foreigners, buses too, property prices have gone up because foreigners with permanent residence are buying into the market.”

Actually, Singapore’s attitude towards low-skilled foreign workers runs counter to that a generation ago when the manufacturing era and large economies like China and India were emerging.

Sensing a threat in the 70s and 80s as they could offer more and cheaper workers and land to foreign factories, Lee – then at the height of his leadership – ordered a restructure to move Singapore’s economy to higher skill levels.

By the late 1980s state leaders raised salaries and cost of operations for low-skilled manufacturers to operate in Singapore. The idea was to move them to nearby Batam, Malaysia and Thailand.

“We don’t want investors to come here to manufacture low-margin products like umbrellas, plastic and clogs,” one government economist said.

I remember as a newspaper editor I sat in on a briefing by Economic Development officials in Brussels who told Lee Kuan Yew that they were faced with several requests from European investors to relocate to Singapore.

These were medium-size operations, but Singapore could not meet their demand for Singapore workers.

“We can tell them to operate in one of our nearby hub cities in Malaysia or Indonesia to make use of their workers under Singapore supervision,” Lee suggested.

The officials replied: “No, Sir, they insist on Singapore workers; otherwise they would have set up business in other countries.”

The industrial revolution was still in full swing. But Lee saw the shortcoming in Singapore’s small size in manpower and land.

The solution was to move to high-skilled levels, especially in services. Tertiary education and job retraining went full swing.

At the time he was against the intake of too many unskilled foreigners.

In several briefings, he sniffed at Europe’s mass import of low-skilled workers from Asia and Africa, saying it is something Singapore will not emulate.

The rich Europeans were addicted to imported cheap labour to do “dirty jobs” that locals refused to do, a reliance long turned into a national addiction.

As a result, more and more unskilled foreigners were needed.

Today with the strong reliance on “cheap foreigners”, it is becoming a lot harder to turn back to the original strategy of high-skilled services by using trained Singaporeans.