# data[].attributes.body
Say no to racism
Say no to racism
favorite_border
0
4 comments

Anonymous 1m
no

Anonymous 1m
yes

Anonymous 1m
Lol damn obv who sia

Anonymous 1m
lmao


Add comment
STOP COPYPASTING
 STOP COPYPASTING
favorite_border
0
12 comments

Anonymous 1m
i agree

Anonymous 1m
100%

Anonymous 1m
very funny arh

Anonymous 1m
hey stob it

Anonymous 1m
stop it

Anonymous 1m
who ah

Anonymous 1m
its time to stop

Anonymous 1m
enough is enough

Anonymous 1m
get some help

Anonymous 1m
u need help

Anonymous 1m
stop it . if udw to type don't disturb ppl who are typing

Anonymous 1m
travis


Add comment
📎 Sign up for Padlet
favorite_border
0


Add comment
favorite
 favorite
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Empty
 favorite_border
 0
 Empty
favorite_border
0


Add comment

 favorite_border
 0
 7 c
 
favorite_border
0
7 comments
favorite_border
0


Add comment
STOP COPYPASTING
STOP COPYPASTING
favorite_border
0


Add comment
This is not fake news
 Th
 This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
11 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment
favorite_border
0


Add comment
This is not fake news
 Th
 This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
10 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment
favorite_border
0


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
10 comments

Anonymous 10m
ouch

Anonymous 9m
meow

Anonymous 9m
ow

Anonymous 8m
oolala

Anonymous 6m
yolo yolo yolo ya

Anonymous 3m
DID U SEE MY BAG

Anonymous 1m
stop pls( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 1m
thicc

Anonymous 1m
WHAT CUA THINK BOUT THAT

Anonymous 1m
xiang wei hella thicc( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 29m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
29 comments

Anonymous 30m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 29m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 29m
branson - wars

Anonymous 28m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 28m
communism

Anonymous 27m
🤬

Anonymous 27m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 27m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 26m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 26m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 26m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 25m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 25m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 25m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 25m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 24m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 24m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 24m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 23m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 22m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 22m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 21m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 20m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 17m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 17m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 13m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 9m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 6m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 1m
Better job opportunities or higher pay, affordable living or cars that aren't approved into Singapore ~Dylan


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
23 comments

Anonymous 28m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 28m
Branson^

Anonymous 28m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 26m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 25m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 24m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 24m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 23m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 22m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 21m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 20m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 20m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 19m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 19m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 17m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 17m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 13m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 12m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 11m
freedom

Anonymous 10m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 6m
good government-rach

Anonymous 6m
good security system, good living condition with basic necessities and facilities -janice

Anonymous 1m
Security, easy accessibility to needs , politically friendly -Tanushree


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
8 comments

Anonymous 26m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 24m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 21m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 16m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 12m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan

Anonymous 1m
social events to connect - clarence

Anonymous 1m
INTERACT

Anonymous 1m
siying : organise events to include these migrant workers and allow both locals and the migrant workers to interact with each other and understand each other's differences


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
6 comments

Anonymous 21m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 15m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng

Anonymous 4m
all the blame is put on immigrants for singapores increase of costs - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
criticism of foreigners has taken an increasingly xenophobic tone over the past year, and contributed to a decline in support for the government. -keane

Anonymous 1m
Singaporeans feel that immigrants from other country are the reason why prices are increasing

Anonymous 1m
rising property prices and living costs. Singapore become the third most expensive Asian city to live in/tianqi


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
6 comments

Anonymous 23m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 23m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 13m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 11m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 10m
(push factors ;) poor services,lack of education,poor medical care,poorpay,war (pull factors;)sufficient food,job oppurtunities,freedom @ huda

Anonymous 7m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemployment, poor pay, hazardous working condition,war,persectution pull: plenty of food, available of services, lots of doctors, job opportunities, good pay, better quality of life, democracy, freedom


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 27m
racism

Anonymous 26m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 26m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 25m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 17m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 17m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 16m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 15m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 14m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 14m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 14m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 13m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 11m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 11m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 9m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 9m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 8m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 7m
sexism

Anonymous 1m
racism, discrimination, often being judge by others and being unappreciated -janice


Add comment
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
13 comments

Anonymous 23m
great by branson

Anonymous 19m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 16m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 13m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 12m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 12m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 11m
cb dog

Anonymous 10m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 9m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 7m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 6m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 5m
migrant workers will keep Singapore's economy competitive despite the ageing population and low birth rates , but local talent will be overshadowed due migrant workers making up a significant part of the population - xw

Anonymous 5m
we have a aging population,therefore economy will drop so we need immigrants to help our country in our economy however we have been taking in too many immigrants and they have been stealing jobs from locals themselves-Yi Heng


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 33m
hi

Anonymous 27m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 24m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 22m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 22m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 20m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 20m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 19m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 19m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 16m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 16m
cooler weather

Anonymous 15m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 14m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 14m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 12m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 9m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 8m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 7m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 7m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 7m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.

Anonymous 1m
have better treatment from people, better living conditions and a more reasonable pay -charie


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
9 comments

Anonymous 22m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 17m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 16m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 14m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 12m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 11m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 8m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.

Anonymous 6m
singapore is a multiracial nation !!1!1!one!!

Anonymous 6m
Singapore has abundance of food n water for the migrants n it is a safe country -gerlin


Add comment
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 1m
THIS IS DEEPER THAN THE MARIANA TRENCH

Anonymous 1m
WTH


Add comment
Empty
favorite_border
0


Add comment

 favorite_border
 0
 7 c
 
favorite_border
0
7 comments
favorite_border
0


Add comment
This is not fake news
 Th
 This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
11 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment
favorite_border
0


Add comment
This is not fake news
 Th
 This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
10 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment
favorite_border
0


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
4 comments

Anonymous 32m
awesome by branson

Anonymous 2m
very little people come to asia

Anonymous 2m
migrate

Anonymous 1m
Many people are leaving asia for other countries -charie


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
29 comments

Anonymous 33m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 33m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 32m
branson - wars

Anonymous 32m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 31m
communism

Anonymous 31m
🤬

Anonymous 31m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 30m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 30m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 30m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 30m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 29m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 28m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 28m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 28m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 28m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 27m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 27m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 27m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 26m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 26m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 25m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 23m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 21m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 20m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 16m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 13m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 3m
Better job opportunities or higher pay, affordable living or cars that aren't approved into Singapore ~Dylan


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
23 comments

Anonymous 32m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 31m
Branson^

Anonymous 31m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 29m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 28m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 28m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 27m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 27m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 26m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 25m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 24m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 24m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 23m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 23m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 21m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 21m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 17m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 15m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 14m
freedom

Anonymous 14m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 10m
good government-rach

Anonymous 9m
good security system, good living condition with basic necessities and facilities -janice

Anonymous 4m
Security, easy accessibility to needs , politically friendly -Tanushree


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
9 comments

Anonymous 30m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 27m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 25m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 19m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 16m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan

Anonymous 5m
social events to connect - clarence

Anonymous 4m
INTERACT

Anonymous 4m
siying : organise events to include these migrant workers and allow both locals and the migrant workers to interact with each other and understand each other's differences

Anonymous 3m
events to help them socialise and interact -charie


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
6 comments

Anonymous 24m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 19m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng

Anonymous 8m
all the blame is put on immigrants for singapores increase of costs - jazzman

Anonymous 8m
criticism of foreigners has taken an increasingly xenophobic tone over the past year, and contributed to a decline in support for the government. -keane

Anonymous 4m
Singaporeans feel that immigrants from other country are the reason why prices are increasing

Anonymous 4m
rising property prices and living costs. Singapore become the third most expensive Asian city to live in/tianqi


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 26m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 26m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 17m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 15m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 13m
(push factors ;) poor services,lack of education,poor medical care,poorpay,war (pull factors;)sufficient food,job oppurtunities,freedom @ huda

Anonymous 10m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemployment, poor pay, hazardous working condition,war,persectution pull: plenty of food, available of services, lots of doctors, job opportunities, good pay, better quality of life, democracy, freedom

Anonymous 2m
Push: poor living, lack of jobs pull: Better jobs better living conditions-clarence


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 30m
racism

Anonymous 30m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 29m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 29m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 21m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 21m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 19m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 19m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 18m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 18m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 17m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 17m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 15m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 14m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 13m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 13m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 13m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 12m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 11m
sexism

Anonymous 3m
racism, discrimination, often being judge by others and being unappreciated -janice

Anonymous 3m
people just don't care enough for them -clarence


Add comment
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
13 comments

Anonymous 26m
great by branson

Anonymous 23m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 19m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 17m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 16m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 15m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 14m
cb dog

Anonymous 14m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 13m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 11m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 9m
migrant workers will keep Singapore's economy competitive despite the ageing population and low birth rates , but local talent will be overshadowed due migrant workers making up a significant part of the population - xw

Anonymous 9m
we have a aging population,therefore economy will drop so we need immigrants to help our country in our economy however we have been taking in too many immigrants and they have been stealing jobs from locals themselves-Yi Heng


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
22 comments

Anonymous 36m
hi

Anonymous 31m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 27m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 25m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 25m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 24m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 24m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 23m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 22m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 20m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 19m
cooler weather

Anonymous 18m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 18m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 17m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 16m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 12m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 11m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 11m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 10m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.

Anonymous 5m
have better treatment from people, better living conditions and a more reasonable pay -charie

Anonymous 3m
treat them the way we want to be treated and help them out when we can -huda


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
9 comments

Anonymous 26m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 21m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 19m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 17m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 16m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 15m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 11m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.

Anonymous 10m
singapore is a multiracial nation !!1!1!one!!

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has abundance of food n water for the migrants n it is a safe country -gerlin


Add comment

# data[].attributes.body
Empty
favorite_border
0


Add comment

 favorite_border
 0
 7 c
 
favorite_border
0
7 comments
favorite_border
0


Add comment
STOP COPYPASTING
STOP COPYPASTING
favorite_border
0


Add comment
This is not fake news
 Th
 This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
11 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment
favorite_border
0


Add comment
This is not fake news
 Th
 This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
10 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment
favorite_border
0


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
10 comments

Anonymous 10m
ouch

Anonymous 9m
meow

Anonymous 9m
ow

Anonymous 8m
oolala

Anonymous 6m
yolo yolo yolo ya

Anonymous 3m
DID U SEE MY BAG

Anonymous 1m
stop pls( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 1m
thicc

Anonymous 1m
WHAT CUA THINK BOUT THAT

Anonymous 1m
xiang wei hella thicc( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 29m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
29 comments

Anonymous 30m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 29m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 29m
branson - wars

Anonymous 28m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 28m
communism

Anonymous 27m
🤬

Anonymous 27m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 27m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 26m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 26m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 26m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 25m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 25m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 25m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 25m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 24m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 24m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 24m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 23m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 22m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 22m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 21m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 20m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 17m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 17m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 13m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 9m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 6m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 1m
Better job opportunities or higher pay, affordable living or cars that aren't approved into Singapore ~Dylan


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
23 comments

Anonymous 28m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 28m
Branson^

Anonymous 28m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 26m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 25m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 24m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 24m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 23m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 22m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 21m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 20m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 20m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 19m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 19m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 17m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 17m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 13m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 12m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 11m
freedom

Anonymous 10m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 6m
good government-rach

Anonymous 6m
good security system, good living condition with basic necessities and facilities -janice

Anonymous 1m
Security, easy accessibility to needs , politically friendly -Tanushree


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
8 comments

Anonymous 26m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 24m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 21m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 16m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 12m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan

Anonymous 1m
social events to connect - clarence

Anonymous 1m
INTERACT

Anonymous 1m
siying : organise events to include these migrant workers and allow both locals and the migrant workers to interact with each other and understand each other's differences


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
6 comments

Anonymous 21m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 15m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng

Anonymous 4m
all the blame is put on immigrants for singapores increase of costs - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
criticism of foreigners has taken an increasingly xenophobic tone over the past year, and contributed to a decline in support for the government. -keane

Anonymous 1m
Singaporeans feel that immigrants from other country are the reason why prices are increasing

Anonymous 1m
rising property prices and living costs. Singapore become the third most expensive Asian city to live in/tianqi


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
6 comments

Anonymous 23m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 23m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 13m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 11m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 10m
(push factors ;) poor services,lack of education,poor medical care,poorpay,war (pull factors;)sufficient food,job oppurtunities,freedom @ huda

Anonymous 7m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemployment, poor pay, hazardous working condition,war,persectution pull: plenty of food, available of services, lots of doctors, job opportunities, good pay, better quality of life, democracy, freedom


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 27m
racism

Anonymous 26m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 26m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 25m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 17m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 17m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 16m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 15m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 14m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 14m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 14m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 13m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 11m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 11m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 9m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 9m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 8m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 7m
sexism

Anonymous 1m
racism, discrimination, often being judge by others and being unappreciated -janice


Add comment
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
13 comments

Anonymous 23m
great by branson

Anonymous 19m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 16m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 13m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 12m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 12m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 11m
cb dog

Anonymous 10m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 9m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 7m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 6m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Anonymous 5m
migrant workers will keep Singapore's economy competitive despite the ageing population and low birth rates , but local talent will be overshadowed due migrant workers making up a significant part of the population - xw

Anonymous 5m
we have a aging population,therefore economy will drop so we need immigrants to help our country in our economy however we have been taking in too many immigrants and they have been stealing jobs from locals themselves-Yi Heng


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 33m
hi

Anonymous 27m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 24m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 22m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 22m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 20m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 20m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 19m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 19m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 16m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 16m
cooler weather

Anonymous 15m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 14m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 14m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 12m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 9m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 8m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 7m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 7m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 7m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.

Anonymous 1m
have better treatment from people, better living conditions and a more reasonable pay -charie


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
9 comments

Anonymous 22m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 17m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 16m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 14m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 12m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 11m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 8m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.

Anonymous 6m
singapore is a multiracial nation !!1!1!one!!

Anonymous 6m
Singapore has abundance of food n water for the migrants n it is a safe country -gerlin


Add comment

# data[].attributes.body
This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
11 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment

# data[].attributes.body
This is not fake news
This is not fake news
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
gey pride


Add comment
ouch
ouch
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 3m
ouch

Anonymous 3m
meow

Anonymous 2m
ow

Anonymous 2m
oolala

Anonymous 1m
yolo yolo yolo ya


Add comment
ppl
 ppl
favorite_border
0
1 comment

Anonymous 1m
yyeees?


Add comment
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
Do you know anyone who has experienced racism just because they look like another race? Click on the comment button below and write down your response
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 4m
yes

Anonymous 3m
im talking from experience

Anonymous 1m
^^who are u

Anonymous 1m
yes i have experience - jazzmanc

Anonymous 1m
guess me


Add comment
not supportive of having
  not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0


Add comment
t button to give your sug
 t button to give your suggestions. 
favorite_border
0


Add comment
Introduction: Global Migration
Introduction: Global Migration
Take a look at the global migration pattern.
favorite
1
1 comment

Anonymous 22m
awesome by branson


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
28 comments

Anonymous 23m
high cost of living and stressful education - megan

Anonymous 22m
chua yi heng living conditions,job opportunities,studies

Anonymous 22m
branson - wars

Anonymous 22m
terrorist -ck

Anonymous 21m
communism

Anonymous 20m
🤬

Anonymous 20m
moving to find work or better quality of life /tian qi

Anonymous 20m
further my studies and experience new surroundings -huda

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - more promising job opportunities in other countries, wars in home country

Anonymous 19m
cannot afford the living cost, lack of job oppotunities-gu shan

Anonymous 19m
High cost of living and competition for job opportunities -Tanushree

Anonymous 18m
for more job opportunities and better education and for a better quality of life -charie

Anonymous 18m
siying: better work opportunities , better education, and better living conditions

Anonymous 18m
Difficulty in getting jobs, High cost of living. -Clarence

Anonymous 18m
for furthers studies or for better job opportunities and for better living condition -janice

Anonymous 17m
Experience gun violence-travis

Anonymous 17m
better job opportunities -yinghan

Anonymous 17m
experience rule under a dictator-travis and xiang wei

Anonymous 16m
more opportunities and further studies - xw

Anonymous 16m
education and more work opportunities.-xh

Anonymous 15m
corruption, better job opportunities, war, terrorism-zach

Anonymous 14m
Better job opportunities and education and better living conditions - gerlin

Anonymous 13m
if the country is under threat or there are better job opportunities -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
better job prospects and lower cost of living with same or better living conditions -keane

Anonymous 10m
further studies and better job opportunities or living conditions -germaine

Anonymous 6m
taking a course / getting enrolled in a school that i'm passionate about which is not available in sg -ec

Anonymous 2m
to have a wider variety of jobs to choose from - jazzman

Anonymous 1m
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

favorite_border
0
21 comments

Anonymous 21m
government and crime rates

Anonymous 21m
Branson^

Anonymous 21m
cost of livign - ck

Anonymous 19m
fayoot - a honest government, conveniency to basic facilities, cost of living

Anonymous 18m
security-Yi Heng

Anonymous 17m
Accessibility of resources and efficiency of country's lifestyle - Megan

Anonymous 17m
personal freedom/tian qi

Anonymous 17m
Quality of life -Clarence

Anonymous 15m
crime rates and cost of living -xw

Anonymous 14m
living expenses, danger of drone strikes,culture and if the gov is corrupt-travis

Anonymous 13m
good pay -yinghan

Anonymous 13m
living costs, security-zach

Anonymous 12m
hving enough food n the security of the country -gerlin

Anonymous 12m
safety and abundance of food and water -charie

Anonymous 10m
most importantly safety and the cost of living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 10m
culture and vibe -anon

Anonymous 6m
the security and peace among people -huda

Anonymous 5m
Basic necessities and proper security ~Dylan

Anonymous 4m
freedom

Anonymous 3m
good security, basic necessities and good living and working conditions. -germaine

Anonymous 1m
good government-rach


Add comment
Read the article
Read the article 
Recommend ways on how  Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.
favorite_border
0
5 comments

Anonymous 19m
Have more social events -BRanson

Anonymous 17m
fayoot - maybe include events that other immigrants/foreigners can participate in

Anonymous 14m
By providing language expertise, social networks -Yi Heng

Anonymous 9m
more social networks and various events for foreigners to participate in -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 5m
encourage locals and non-locals to interact. -yinghan


Add comment
Read
Read
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?
favorite_border
0
2 comments

Anonymous 14m
There is an aging population,with median age of Singapore increasing from 41 to 41.3 in the span of one year. The migrant workers are taking more than 20% of the population, and the decreasing birth rate( replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.), and increasing numbers of migration . -kaile

Anonymous 8m
Singaporeans blame immigrants for the rise for property prices and living costs,stealing jobs from the singaporeans-Yi Heng


Add comment
Watch
Watch
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 16m
siying: (pull)- more available services , better quality of life , democracy (push) - poor medical care , hazardous working conditions , war

Anonymous 16m
Pull Factors: Safer housing or better security, Proper Services Push Factors: Famine, Poor income ~Dylan

Anonymous 6m
[pull] safer housing and better quality of life [push] famine, poor medical care or low income -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 4m
(pull) more doctors, more job opportunities.more services better education. (push) war, famine hazardous working conditions.-xh,inch

Anonymous 3m
push factors ; poor services,lack of education,poor medical care

Anonymous 2m
as said in the video

Anonymous 1m
push: poor services, lack of education, poor medical care,unemploymetn


Add comment
Watch
Watch 
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?
favorite_border
0
19 comments

Anonymous 20m
racism

Anonymous 20m
#stopabusingmigrantworkers2k18

Anonymous 19m
people dont understand with your heavy accent

Anonymous 18m
mistreatment from the people who hire them.-xh

Anonymous 10m
people judge and view them in a negative light more often than not. - jazzman

Anonymous 10m
they are being treated badly and are bullied in a way that their employers look down on them -eun

Anonymous 9m
Many despise them because of their country they are from or who they are as workers or cleaners ~Dylan

Anonymous 8m
poor treatment s and people look down on them-tian qi

Anonymous 7m
they are not respected enough and are always put in a negative light -huda

Anonymous 7m
siying :discrimination , poor treatment from the company , and despise

Anonymous 7m
RACISM and constant judging from Singaporeans - Megan

Anonymous 7m
singaporeans being judgemental as always

Anonymous 4m
they may face social discrimination and the judgemental eyes they get from the people , people looking down on them as if they were beggars. Migrant workers often do not get enough money despite the hard labour they have to go through.-kaile

Anonymous 4m
racism and discrimination -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 2m
fayoot - workers may face racism and harsh judgement from others. they will also be criticised from where they come from

Anonymous 2m
social discrimination and company's refusal to compensate and take responsibility - xw

Anonymous 2m
they are treated unfairly and are constantly looked down on -charie

Anonymous 1m
racism, judgemental people, poor treatment, dont get recognised for their hardwork, misses their family and hometown a lot

Anonymous 1m
sexism


Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.ddSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dSeemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evolving external environment.

Singapore’s population growth over the past year was its slowest in more than a decade.

As of June this year, Singapore’s total population stood at 5.61 million, up just 0.1 per cent from last year.

The annual population brief released by the National Population and Talent Division on Wednesday also highlighted two consistent themes: Fewer citizen births, and an ageing citizen population.

ADVERTISEMENT

There were 33,167 citizen births last year, a dip from 33,725 in 2015, although this remained marginally above the past decade’s annual average of about 32,200 citizen births.

With increasing life expectancy and low fertility rates, the citizens’ median age also increased to 41.3 years, from 41 years in 2016. The proportion of citizens aged 65 and above rose to 14.4 per cent, up from 13.7 per cent last year.

In the years ahead, the proportion of citizen population aged 65 years and above will rise at a faster pace compared with the past decade as more post-war “baby boomers” enter the post-65 age range.

In the past year, 22,102 individuals — the highest number in the past 10 years — were granted citizenship. Most new citizens were from Southeast Asia, followed by other parts of Asia, and then from outside Asia. Another 31,050 people were given permanent residency. Overall, the number of permanent residents remained stable at 527,000.

The demographic challenges will become more significant in the years ahead.

However, after the uproar and unhappiness over the 6.9 million population in 2030 planning parameter in the 2013 Population White Paper, a very cautious approach to immigration has been adopted, despite the need to boost our population level.

A salient point from the latest set of population statistics is that immigration will continue to play an important role in population augmentation — not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of quality.

Immigration in Singapore reflects two competing, perhaps even conflicting, anxieties. One is the state’s anxiety that if the population is not topped up adequately, quantitatively and qualitatively, then Singapore is down the path of economic malaise, social vulnerability and geopolitical irrelevance.

The other is the average Singaporean’s angst and anxiety that there are already too many immigrants in Singapore and that it is taking in too many more immigrants.

With the domestic workforce expected to decline from 2020, the policy imperative to keep the immigration doors open will remain abidingly strong.

As former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew put it in 2012: “Our choice must be … taking in immigrants. I know Singaporeans do not feel very comfortable seeing so many strange new faces, but the alternative is economic stagnation and worse, nobody to look after our old people later on.”

In the contentious Population White Paper debate, the previous immigration policy was perceived as generating more competition in schools, for housing and jobs, a cause of runaway property prices, overcrowdedness in public spaces, the cheapening of the value of Singapore citizenship, the dilution of the Singaporean identity, and more.

These sentiments are no different from that of other countries with immigrant inflows.

The reality is that immigration will continue to be a prominent feature in Singapore’s political, economic and socio-cultural landscape.

Despite the slew of marriage and parenthood incentives, Singapore is unlikely to raise its total fertility rate (TFR) to near replacement level. Last year’s resident TFR dipped to 1.20 from 1.24.

However, the apparent tension over the immigration policy negatively affects the state’s efforts to recruit new immigrants. From time to time, xenophobic sentiments are expressed on social media platforms. This was particularly acute following a large influx of people between 2005 and 2009. As the 2010 advanced census data revealed, the number of non-residents (foreigners working, living or studying in Singapore without permanent residence status) almost doubled from 754,500 in 2000 to 1.31 million in 2010.

The number of permanent residents almost doubled from 287,500 to 541,000 in the same period.

In contrast, the number of citizens grew more modestly, from 2,985,900 in 2000, to 3,230,700 in June 2010. The next census in 2020 will have less-dramatic figures where immigration is concerned, as the days of runaway growth are probably over.

Nonetheless, as many countries’ experiences show, the challenge in getting citizens to embrace a national policy like immigration is that not every citizen gains from it — at least at the personal level. It is not unusual for foreign workers and new immigrants to be blamed for local jobs lost, stagnant wages, high property prices and public infrastructure unable to keep up with the influx.

The global economic realities in which Singapore’s immigration regime operates mean that immigrant-seeking countries such as Singapore and Australia compete with one another for the same talent pool.

At the same time, a country’s immigration regime has to appeal to the prospective immigrant and be acceptable to the domestic audience. At times, the interests and needs of the foreign and domestic audiences not only compete but may also conflict.

All things being equal, prospective immigrants are more likely to migrate to a country where there is less opposition to immigration. Politically, immigration can be a vote-loser for governments if it is not managed properly and the local population resists the policy and new entrants.

This was vividly demonstrated in United Kingdom Brexit polls, the United States presidential election and the recent German election.

The race for talent will get only more intense.

Singapore’s global pursuit of human capital is also made more compelling given that developed countries such as Australia, the UK, the US and many European Union countries are competing to make themselves attractive immigration destinations.

Like Singapore, these countries seek to appeal and attract the well-educated and talented segment of the potential migrant pool to augment their human resource capability.

Increasingly, the usual immigrant sources for Singapore — China, India and South-east Asia — are also experiencing demographic slowdowns. They are also experiencing healthy economic growth in which the push factors for emigration are weakened.

Hence, immigration policy is less likely to be about quantity but more about quality — numbers are not as pivotal as attracting the right type of immigrant.

The qualitative aspect must become a crucial differentiator in deciding who acquires citizenship. This includes whether a prospective citizen shares our values and ethos.

Regardless of the pace of immigration, more openness over the direction of the immigration regime can help secure buy-in.

The Government and Singaporeans should not shy away from a frank discussion over the pluses and minuses of immigration.

Gaining the support of Singaporeans requires attending to the concerns at both cognitive and affective levels. The bottom line is that the immigration regime has to significantly contribute to society’s overall welfare, and ensure that Singaporeans’ collective interests are adequately looked after and their identities secure and protected.dds
Read the following article.
Read the following article.
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.
favorite_border
0
10 comments

Anonymous 16m
great by branson

Anonymous 12m
people are important -Branson

Anonymous 9m
If we keep our doors open to immigrants, the number of people being born IN Singapore will decline thus causing the drop in TFR and overall population growth. While immigrants are coming in to work for their families overseas, there are bubbling fears of immigrants one day taking over the entire country with actual Singaporeans being the minority. - Megan

Anonymous 6m
Keeping our doors open can introduce more types of knowledge from different countries that are far away(e.g. Iceland,USA) but if too many migrate over and overtakes our local talents, we would lose the Singapore that has many different local races (chinese,malay,indian) ~ Dylan

Anonymous 5m
fayoot - opening immigration doors may be beneficial to workers, however at some point majority of singapore will be occupied by migrant workers. This would overshadow local talent. The great influx of new migrant workers would also present overcrowding in Singapore. Also, Singapore is an island, therefore land space is limited, and housing for migrant workers may be difficult. Thus, homelessness rate will increase. Overall, my opinion on this is that it is would pose as a serious problem to our nation.

Anonymous 5m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth - jazzman

Anonymous 4m
cb dog

Anonymous 3m
local talent wouldn't be able to outlast foreign talent if we keep on accepting foreign workers-clarence

Anonymous 2m
Having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore.-BRanson

Anonymous 1m
if we let the immigrants enter singapore, the number of people being born in singapore will drop hence causing a decline in TFR and population growth but having more imigrants will help singapore economy due to the ageing population however we are also worried that too much imigrants coming to singapore will affect the harmony of singapore -๖Ger༻


Add comment
Reflect
Reflect
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions. 

favorite_border
0
20 comments

Anonymous 26m
hi

Anonymous 20m
cost of living- ck

Anonymous 17m
Less Racism and much more racial awareness - Megan

Anonymous 15m
show our care and appreciation to them. - gu shan

Anonymous 15m
financial aid - xw

Anonymous 13m
provide better living conditions and food for he workers,show them care and provide yearly body checkup to make sure that they are in a healthy condition to work.-xh

Anonymous 13m
Thinking of them as a fellow man and not as a competitor . It may be hard but they have a family back there to earn for too. -Tanushree

Anonymous 13m
more pay - jazzman

Anonymous 12m
affordable living -๖Ger༻

Anonymous 9m
treating them equally -charie

Anonymous 9m
cooler weather

Anonymous 8m
more respect for them and give higher salaries for them-zach

Anonymous 7m
provide better living conditions and pay for the workers. -germaine

Anonymous 7m
treat them as oneof us

Anonymous 5m
don't discriminate them and respect them snd better pay for the migrant workers -janice

Anonymous 2m
show care towards them n appreciate their hard work -gerlin

Anonymous 1m
fair treatment and respect them/tian qi

Anonymous 1m
fayoot - provide living space for them at an affordable price. also raise their salaries and to reduce discrimination towards them

Anonymous 1m
Show appreciation to them for what they have done for Singapore, a little care and support can make their day too ~Dylan

Anonymous 1m
singapore have a ageing population therefore our economy wil drop therefore we need immigrants to help us in our economy.


Add comment
Persuade
Persuade
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos) 
favorite_border
0
7 comments

Anonymous 15m
Singapore is a safe place with good authoritative forces - Megan

Anonymous 10m
Singapore has good defences and a strategic location where natural disasters don't happen ~Dylan

Anonymous 9m
Singapore has good national security , fantastic job opportunities . And under the regime of great leaders , you too can pull yourself out of poverty and suffering - xw

Anonymous 7m
Singapore is a place where it is relatively safe and has a good working environment if you can find the right place-clarence

Anonymous 5m
Singapore open doors to immigrants. Welcoming of people who have the economic skills /tian qi

Anonymous 4m
fayoot - Singapore has many great job opportunities and good living conditions

Anonymous 1m
siying: Singapore is a country which has good job opportunities and good living conditions where we accept different diversity as a nation and singapore has a strong nation security.


Add comment

# data[].attributes.body
 not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?

# data[].attributes.body
Take a look at the global migration pattern.

# data[].attributes.body
What would make you want to leave your home city or country? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

# data[].attributes.body
Imagine you were moving to a new country. What would be the most important factors to take into consideration? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

# data[].attributes.body
Recommend ways on how Singaporeans and new immigrants can interact to promote integration and inclusiveness in our society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'First-wave' Immigrant Associations

When people immigrate, they tend to seek out those who are similar to themselves in the new country. This is to be expected. As human beings, we are generally more comfortable with those of similar backgrounds given a shared appreciation for traditions, cuisine, art forms, festivals and sensibilities. Shared experiences of growing up in a particular country creates a feeling of solidarity.

Therefore, it is not uncommon for immigrant associations to form when sufficient numbers of immigrants from a particular locality end up residing in a new country.

According to migration scholar, Joao Sardinha, who examined immigrant associations in Portugal, the main functions of these organisations include helping members overcome social isolation and hardship issues, and representing their members' voices in the new country's democratic processes. These immigrant associations also help members preserve their cultural identity, and provide a familiar space for members while they begin their new lives in an unfamiliar territory.

Some scholars, however, criticise these associations for preventing immigrants from integrating into society. They claim these organisations form exclusive and concentric social spaces that dis-incentivises immigrants from interacting with the local community.

In the last two decades, the inflow of foreign migrants in Singapore caused a proliferation of new immigrant associations and the revival of former ones.

The first immigrant associations in Singapore date back to the middle of the 19th century when Chinese immigrants from the Guangdong and Fukien provinces set up Chinese clan associations. These associations were established to safeguard their interests and provide a space for cultural activities, such as ancestral worship and the celebration of traditional festivals. Without a well-developed legal system, clan associations arbitrated employment disputes and inter- and intra-clan conflicts. Furthermore, these immigrant associations served as a social safety net providing less fortunate members with shelter and repatriating their remains back to China after they passed away.

A new era of Immigrant Associations?

While some of their functions became obsolete after Singapore's rapid development post-independence, immigrant associations continued to play a role in preserving culture. However, these associations also experienced a decline in membership with the rise of various community organisations and with fewer people brandishing their immigrant roots.

In the last two decades, however, the inflow of foreign migrants in Singapore caused a proliferation of new immigrant associations and the revival of former ones. Based on our count, there are close to 80 organisations that function as immigrant associations - a third of which represent immigrants of Indian and Chinese descent. Like the 'first wave' Chinese clan associations, these new organisations provide immigrants with the opportunity to recreate their cultural space and find others of similar background and experiences.

Interestingly enough, however, these immigrant associations have not developed into exclusive and inward-looking groups.

Instead, from observing activities of forty immigrant associations, they seem to make substantial effort to reach out to locals and invite them to their events, and to participate in national events such as the annual Chingay Parade.

Many immigrant associations also encourage their members to volunteer and engage in philanthropy. Some associations tie up with local charities to organise fundraising events. For example, the Netherlands Charity Association supports local charities for the children, the disabled, and the elderly who fall through the cracks of social safety nets. Some associations also generously contribute scholarships - the Tianfu Association contributed $10,000 to the Malay self-help group, MENDAKI, to assist less privileged Malay students with their education. Other associations provide volunteers to work alongside society's less privileged segments.

Locals and Indian immigrants dancing to Bollywood music at BiJhar Society's Deepavali celebrations.

Beyond establishing social ties with the local community and engaging in volunteer work, immigrant associations educate their members on diverse local cultures. They conduct tours of local heritage sites, such as the Tiong Bahru housing estate, and of places where multiple cultures co-exist, like Chinatown and Kampong Glam. Some associations also organise talks to educate their members about local laws and how they differ from the laws at home.

Integrating newcomers

Immigrant associations' commitment towards engaging the local community is heartwarming. Most of these efforts can be attributed to Singapore's multicultural policy, which preserves the right for different cultures to co-exist and allows immigrants to preserve their cultural identities. This commitment can also be attributed to Singapore's framework for social cohesion, which encourages people of different ethnicities and backgrounds to unite and forge a collective sense of community.

Celebrating Singapore as One Community

For SG50, PA's grassroots organisations partnered with 15 immigrant associations to showcase Singapore's rich tapestry of cultures at the One Community Fiesta 2015. 3,500 people of different ethnicities and nationalities participated. Read more.

Many immigration associations also take the initiative to reach out by organising events that provide cross-cultural understanding and encourage locals and non-locals to interact. The State supports these efforts through schemes such as the Community Integration Fund, which provides funding for integration initiatives. The People's Association (PA) also organises nation-wide initiatives such as the One Community Fiesta and the Chingay Parade, which are mass events that provide immigrant associations with spaces to showcase their culture while reaching out to local attendees.

What can Immigrant Associations do to further facilitate integration?

1Foster local-immigrant relations

Immigrant associations can act as public voices for mediating conflicts and for providing advice whenever societal tensions occur between locals and immigrants. Such advice, which draws on similarities between immigrants and Singaporeans instead of differences, is helpful for resolving misunderstandings.

2Overseas connections

Immigrant associations can provide valuable services to Singaporeans seeking to conduct business, cultural exchange or humanitarian work in the countries represented by these organisations. By providing language expertise, social networks and cultural know-how, these associations will greatly facilitate Singaporeans' ability to navigate through the new terrain.

3We need to be good hosts too

In turn, local community organisations - 'first wave' immigrant associations as well as grassroots groups - should build bridges with immigrant associations. By regularly conversing with these organisations, immigrants' issues will be understood, which allows Singaporeans to serve as cherished hosts to the migrant community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore's Immigrant Associations - Inclusive or exclusive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When people immigrate, they tend to seek out those who are similar to themselves in the new country. This is to be expected. As human beings, we are generally more comfortable with those of similar backgrounds given a shared appreciation for traditions, cuisine, art forms, festivals and sensibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflect.
What are some reasons some Singaporeans are not supportive of having a liberal immigration policy?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Asian Century Institute - Singapore's migration dilemmas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singapore has built its economic strength on the back of immigration. But now the city-state's migration policies are testing its society and politics.

# data[].attributes.body
Reflect: After watching the video, click on the comment button below and write down the possible push and pull factors for migration?

# data[].attributes.body
Reflect:
Apart from the problems faced by migrant workers who have difficulty in getting compensation from their employers after a work site accident, what are the other possible problems faced by migrant workers in Singapore?

# data[].attributes.body
What is your opinion on the issue of keeping Singapore's immigration doors open to new migrants? Click on the comment button below and write down your response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Quality immigration will remain Singapore's lifeblood

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seemingly innocuous individual decisions and life events, such as marriage, starting a family and migrating, have significant public-policy implications. This is reflected in the changing demographics of a country, which can affect the agility with which the country responds to the constantly evo

# data[].attributes.body
Suggest ways on how Singapore can be a better place for migrant workers to work and live. Click on the comment button to give your suggestions.

# data[].attributes.body
Write one sentence that can persuade a potential immigrant to settle in Singapore. (Your sentence needs to have a persuasive element to it using ethos and/or pathos and/or logos)