Immigration doesn’t look like it solves our aging problem
Immigration may boost our work force and balance out our economically-active : elderly-persons ratio. At least on paper it can, if you judge by statistics and population pyramids.
But Singapore does not work on a social welfare model — our social welfare is kept to the minimum. The elderly are expected to either depend on themselves, or on their families. This philosophy forms the basis for policies and legislation like the CPF, Reverse Mortgages and Parents Maintenance Act.
This means that although immigration balances out our young-old ratio, what happens in reality is that there will be many economically active immigrants without aged parents to support (or their money is shipped out of Singapore to support their parents back home), and there will be many elderly folk having to depend on themselves. The State of course continues to get tax revenue, while giving out minimal social benefits.
If the fertility rate of the immigrants is below replacement levels as well, the aging problem will be further magnified. If we do not award citizenship and somehow ensure they will return to their home countries by retirement age, they will take a large amount of savings along with them.
This is just a thought, would be nice to have feedback about whether my analysis/concerns are valid. I’ve no solutions, at least not yet.
Like this:
7 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Mathia: ……If we do not award citizenship and somehow ensure they will return to their home countries by retirement age, they will take a large amount of savings along with them…….
-> The idea behind this policy is that employment of foreign worker/employee generates much more money in the country than they could ever put in their pocket and bring out of the country.
This very much depends on how good the calculation/model is.
Let’s hope the government made the right calculations.
Short of knowing/examining the calculation/model (if any!!!) made by the government, any assessment/judgement is simply speculation.
[...] Twilight in Paradise. Growing Old In Singapore – Mathia Lee: Singapore’s policy responses to ageing, inequality and poverty – Mathia Lee: Immigration doesn’t look like it solves our aging problem [...]
Funny, there’s a huge and heated 22 comment thread discussing this post on your facebook link, whilst here tumbleweed rolls past. How bizarre, a reflection of the differing readerships? The facebook crowd more rightwing whilst your blog readership left wing and so this stuff not too controversial.
Funny old interweb.
It doesn’t really matter which social welfare model Singapore adopts – CPF or pension.
If Singapore doesn’t take in immigrants, the population will grow older and as it does so, the country will change from a net saver to a net spender. If we don’t take in more immigrants (who have CPF and local bank accounts) or have more children, the contributions to Temasek will be negative.
@ AH :
Interesting observations.
My previous post on the academic paper has no comments.
on this blog which posted the paper, there’s plenty
http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2009/07/research-paper-on-singapores-policy.html
and on this forum even more http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=3in1kopitiam&msg=18034.1
interesting to form in silico sociological theories eh…
2 more points i’ll like to add on to my original note
1. I’m not saying we need to stop immigration or that immigration has no benefits. I’m just saying, immigration will not alleviate the problem of poor elderly folk, even though it balances out the ratio at a population level. Unless the State distributes the resources more evenly.
2. I think the poor elderly issue will actually be solved within the next decade or so, because pretty soon, the elderly will make up a significant chuck of the electorate. This elderly will not be like today’s elderly who loyally vote for the PAP for what they did 40 years back, and this elderly will be a literate, hopefully questioning, elderly. Unless of course, the young immigrants all vote for the govt, which my Venezuelan friend tells me that’s why Chavez encourages chinese immigrantion….
Actually I agree with your analysis. But the problem is, I could see no other better solution either. Each model has it own problems. And personally I don’t think one is better than another.
Instead, I prefer to see how can we minimize if not solve these potential issues. Generally, I would prefer a government with a more human touch, and empathy to the less fortunate.
Because I always remember what a blue collar worker once said. I cannot remember the exact words, but the general meaning is something like that …
“All my life I have believed in the government, I voted for the PAP, I fought hard together with PAP and made Singapore what it is today. Now that Singapore is rich and developed, while I am old and still uneducated. As the rest of Singapore rush ahead, I am being left behind. Because I have no education, I can only do menial work, and even now I have to compete with the younger and stronger foreign workers. I have given everything for Singapore. So what have Singapore given me? I still have to worry about my next meal. Why should I still vote for PAP?”
Personally, although I generally agree with the government in not providing the full social welfare system like in the west. I do feel that it should be a special case for those who had contributed during pre-independence and early independence days.
It is not fair for them to labor, and yet let the majority of the fruits to be shared with the new immigrants. It is hypocrisy of the highest order that the ones that made Singapore what it is today are living in poverty with little social assistance, whereas significant government perks offered to all that would come and settle in Singapore.
I recognize the need to attract talents. But I also felt that more should be done to the generation that had made us what we are. It is the very fact that Singapore has developed far to rapidly, and that is why they are so displaced, and that is why the great disparity.