Know the trade-offs of population policies

To win votes in this election, political parties may raise issues on immigration and the vulnerability of Singaporeans in relation to foreign workers.

One candidate recently questioned the use of population projections as a planning parameter (“We are not against immigration, says NUS Assoc Prof”; Aug 27). But how can housing, education and transport be planned for without projections in mind?

At the release of his party’s manifesto, he reiterated the proposal of a 1 per cent resident-workforce growth, while keeping foreign-workforce numbers constant.

There are 2.2 million resident workers; 1 per cent growth means 22,000 more of them annually. But for almost 40 years, we have had baby deficits — about 20,000 a year from the current fertility rate versus the replacement rate.

Parties must show us how their ideas are sustainable, and voters should compare the benefits and trade-offs of the parties’ population policies. But it is not easy.

For example, the Workers’ Party based its population policy on an intended annual economic growth of 1.5 to 2.5 per cent from 2020 to 2030, about one-third the average rate of the past five years.

It is hard to fathom the implications of that slower growth, stretching over 10 years amid an ageing population.

How much more taxes must we pay to maintain fiscal balances?

With heavier taxes, would we be able to maintain current living standards?

If the foreign workforce is not allowed to grow to meet demand, would foreign investments flow out and our global competitiveness nosedive?

With high labour costs, how many businesses would close down?

Would citizens accept a slower pace of housing construction?

With more social assistance needed as the population ages faster, would future governments have to borrow money to finance this? Before accepting appealing alternatives, let us first do some questioning.