Two commentaries published in the past fortnight questioning some tenets of the Population White Paper have spurred rigorous discussion on the number of foreign workers Singapore requires going forward, whether a denser population is better, and if enough help is being given to companies to restructure. On 8 February, four economists, including [SMU Associate Professor of Economics (Practice)] Tan Kim Song, posted a commentary on the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) website tackling what they described as “four myths” that have surfaced in the White Paper debate. Economists whom TODAY approached agreed with their comments, and proposed revisiting fundamentals needed for future economic growth and greater focus on building local talent.

Noting that labour costs in many traditional “source” countries like China are also on the rise, SMU Associate Professor of Economics Davin Chor said it could become uneconomical to bring in unskilled foreign labour in future; the best way is to restructure and invest in technologies to raise worker productivity. The second commentary that has generated discussion, written by Bloomberg columnist William Pesek and published on 15 February, was roundly criticised by academics. Associate Prof Chor was among those who took issue with the column, saying that almost all sufficiently developed countries with an ageing profile have had to augment their populations. “To say that procreation policies and immigration are a Ponzi scheme misses the point. These policies are needed if developed countries are to sustain the strength of their labour force. The key instead lies in the degree to which such policies are pursued”, which is the bone of contention in the public furore over the White Paper, he said.