Letter from James Ang Today Online 19 Oct 11;
There has been much discussion on how we need more immigrants to make up for the shortfall caused by our declining birth rate.
Our total population increased from 2.07 million in 1970 to 5.18 million this year, a 150-per-cent increase, while our land area has grown by 21.5 per cent, from 586 sq km to 712 sq km last year. The growth in the number of immigrants indicates it is not just to make up for our replacement rate falling below 2.1 but that it is a strategic drive to grow the economy to its fullest potential.
So our buildings have grown taller, our flats smaller and all closer to one another. More tunnels are dug and highways widened to create more space to cater to an eventual population of more than 6 million.
The race to build more physical infrastructure to catch up with population growth is straining existing resources. Normally rational and tolerant Singaporeans are voicing concern through the many feedback channels.
I am sure there are detailed plans and studies to show that Singapore can grow its population to 6 or even 7 million and build the necessary infrastructure.
But will these plans and studies convey the psychological strain and emotional stress that segments of the populace will face?
Population decline is usually associated with economic decline, weak pension funds and an ageing society with not enough young to support and eventually replace them.
However, have we looked at whether it is possible to let the population decline gradually to a level where Singapore could still achieve sustainable economic growth without the negative consequences of a major population decline?
A coordinated and calibrated approach by all government ministries may be able to attain this fine balance.
Has there been a study to show what would happen if total population declines to 4.6 or 4.8 million - like it was in 2007 and 2008, respectively - instead of rising to 6 million?
This number can be within a band that could be calibrated according to the country's needs and situation at the prevailing time.
I think there would be more space on our trains, buses, roads and in our parks. Class sizes in schools may be smaller, so there would be a better teacher-to-student ratio.
There may be more university places for residents, housing and rental prices might ease and the quality of life might just improve.
Economic growth has always been at the core of our planning processes, but it has to be sustained through productivity growth and quality investments. Residents should not pay a high social price to achieve stratospheric GDP targets.
