Dear PM Lee
I am concerned about the lack of statistics being gathered to keep track of the progress of the immigration policy.
No relevant statistics pertaining to new citizens
The NPTD keeps repeating the reasons for Singaporeans to accept new citizens and this appears to be for economic reasons only. In NPTD’s publications (below), there is no relevant statistics to confirm our immigration policy has worked.
Population in Brief 2008 Population in Brief 2009 Population in Brief 2010 Population in Brief 2011 Population in Brief 2012 Population in Brief 2013
Eg. Page 8 of Our Population, Our Future link proudly proclaims “Immigration helps to supplement shortfall in births” but remains unsupported by statistics.
Figures confirm immigration policy is flawed?
The chart below shows the age profile of PRs mirrors that of citizens. Since new citizens are selected from the current pool of PR, would not new citizens contribute to the ageing population, with the biggest group of PRs aged between 30 and 50?
(Population in Brief 2013 Chart 10 pg 13)
Incomplete information on new citizens
“From 2007-2011, 53 per cent of new SCs were under 30 years old”. Our Population, Our Future With 47 per cent of new citizens above 30, NPTD claims our new SCs are “generally young and have good educational qualifications”. Those above 35 can hardly be termed ‘young’. Strangely, there is information on the educational qualification but none on the age profile, marital status, etc. of new SCs.
From 2007 to 2011, there were 43,385 (47 %) new SCs. Without statistics on the profile of these new SCs, the government cannot be certain they will not exacerbate the ageing population issue.
Have new citizens contributed to an increase in TFR/ageing population issue?
Possible undesirable outcomes:
1 A foreigner married couple who do not plan to have any children.
2 A foreigner family with 1 child becoming Singapore citizens.
3 A foreigner married to a citizen without any intent of setting up a family.
4 Singles aged 35 and above
etc.
The government seems to have ignored the above are possible scenarios.
But the government keeps track of most policies
Every policy needs to be monitored as they have social ramifications.
Eg.
Private transport deregulation – After a decade of deregulation, 10 year car loans had become commonplace. The government stepped in earlier this year and imposed drastic measures to curb car loans by halving the longest tenure to only 5 years and the loan quantum to only 60 per cent. This confirms it has been keeping track of policies. Car loan curbs: What were they meant to achieve?
Public housing – This year, singles have been allowed to purchase new HDB flats. HDB link The government might also be reviewing its policy to allow single mothers to apply for HDB flats. link
etc.
Even ‘Stop At Two’ policy
The ‘Stop at Two’ programme, which targeted lowly-educated and low-income women began in 1969. link Because the government had been monitoring its progress, its ‘success’ was recognised at an early stage.
‘Have Three or More’ replaced the ‘Stop at Two’ in 1987 in an attempt to reverse the damage i.e. a declining TFR.
But no statistics for new citizens as a group?
The chart below shows our TFR has remained below the replacement rate for 26 years since the introduction of ‘Have Three or More’ coupled with a liberal immigration policy.
Our immigration policy appears to have failed, unless there are statistics to prove otherwise. Should the government continue with such a policy?
What if the TFR remains at about the same level when the population increases to 6.9 million?
The government must keep track of all its policies in order to serve citizens better. This is not a choice. If statistics on new citizens show an unfavourable outcome of our immigration policy, the government should consider other options.
Conclusion
All policies need to be monitored and statistics are crucial to determine if policies have worked. There are supporting statistics for other policies but strangely no relevant ones for new citizens. (with regard to age profile, TFR to show it is not counter productive)
Has our immigration policy worked? Without the relevant statistics, the government is merely speculating on the results of its immigration policy which has far-reaching implications.
Thank you.
Regards
Phillip Ang
TRS Contributor