Singapore’s most hated policy paper might also have been its most misunderstood

It tried to solve the problems we're facing today.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A SUBSTACK-EXCLUSIVE ARTICLE BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE WOKE SALARYMAN.

In 2013, the Singapore government published the Population White Paper. It projected that our population could reach 6.9 million by 2030.

People lost it.

To be fair, it was bad. Back then, the trains were packed and broke down often. Housing prices had climbed rapidly in the years leading till then, and work-life balance was a punchline.

What the then-government failed to do was explain how it would help Singaporeans while growing the population. It didn’t explain the trade offs, the economics, the rationale; not to the average kopitiam uncle, at least. (Today, many people still don’t understand it.)

What people heard was: “We’re bringing in more people — deal with it.”

To make matters worse, a series of high profile cases of wealthy foreigners being uncool made the headlines in the following years.

This included a man who drove his Ferrari into a taxi at 178 km/h, killing himself and his passengers. And someone who referred to MRT passengers as ‘poor people’. Older Singaporeans will remember.

It was natural then, that the idea of more foreigners felt like fuel on a fire.

The paper became political poison. But that doesn’t mean it was inherently wrong. It was forward looking, brave, and tone-deaf. All at the same time.

Fast forward to today:

• The total fertility rate is below 1.0

• Singapore’s resident workforce is ageing

• Healthcare costs are climbing

• Younger workers are shouldering more financial pressure

Exactly the kind of future the White Paper was written to prepare for.

Immigration, for all its controversy, has kept the economy moving. It has filled labour gaps, slowed the rise of dependency, and added to the tax pool.

The real problem the White Paper tried to solve

Singapore was getting older in 2013. (It still is.) Birth rates were low, and people were living longer. That’s not unique — but for a small country with no natural resources and limited land, it’s a bigger problem than most.

The math is simple:

• Fewer young people = smaller workforce

• More old people = higher social costs

• Smaller workforce = smaller tax base

• Smaller tax base = less money to go around

The White Paper’s big idea was to grow the workforce through immigration, and keep the economy productive enough to carry the weight of an ageing society. Because you can’t force Singaporeans to have babies; that’s draconian, maybe even dystopian.

Fun fact: Till today, no developed country has successfully reversed declining birth rates over the long term. Yes, France has slowed it, but the only developed country that keeps growing in population is America.

How’s that done? Yup. Immigration.

Yes, the Population White Paper was a blunt tool for a complex challenge. A short-term solution for a long-term problem.

But the alternative — doing nothing — was worse.

Why scale matters

The burden of supporting lower-income groups, eldercare, and public healthcare is far easier to bear with more working-age taxpayers.

It gets much harder if you’ve taxpayers who are ageing, semi-retired, or just coasting to the finish line. You can be sure they will hate paying taxes, too.

That’s the core tension we’re walking into:

Everyone wants support, but fewer people are left to do the supporting.

Without a larger, younger base contributing to the system, you either:

• Raise taxes

• Cut benefits

• Or borrow until your future collapses in on itself

Yes, immigration doesn’t solve everything. But for a nation that wants world-class public services without making more babies or working till they die, it’s one of the few tools left on the table.

And here’s the thing no one likes to admit:

In Singapore, many who shout “locals first” are net takers of public benefits — enjoying subsidised housing, healthcare, and education, while paying little tax.

Meanwhile, many foreigners pay taxes and levies, yet receive few benefits in return. Globally, it’s the same pattern. In the US, anti-immigrant states like Mississippi take more federal aid than they contribute. Brexit-voting towns in the UK relied on EU subsidies. In France, far-right strongholds depend heavily on welfare.

Ironically, the loudest anti-immigration voices are often funded by the very people they want to exclude — the next time you hear someone complain about foreigners, pay attention to who they are.

Meanwhile, most immigrants — especially work pass holders — pay into the system without draining it. No CPF matching. No public housing. Limited healthcare subsidies.

They’re helping to subsidise the system for locals. Not the other way around.

Final thoughts

The population today is around 5.9 million. That 6.9 million figure? Still a long way off. But the conditions that led to the White Paper haven’t changed.

In fact, they’ve intensified.

If Singapore wants to maintain its standard of living, social compact, and global relevance, it needs a sustainable population strategy.

Kicking the can down the road is a luxury we can’t afford. Ageing doesn’t pause while we debate feelings.

The White Paper wasn’t perfect. But it tried to deal with a future most people didn’t want to think about.

And it deserves credit for that.

Stay woke, salaryman.

A collection of comments we foresee, and our responses

Q: Why not just increase productivity instead of bringing in more people?

If you’re sick of hearing "upskill or be obsolete", congratulations — you’ve just proven why productivity has its limits.

Yes, productivity in Singapore has grown… but only about 1–2% a year over the past decade. That’s decent, but nowhere near enough to replace a shrinking working population.

Sure, tech helps in high-margin sectors like finance or logistics. But in jobs like eldercare, F&B, or cleaning? You still need human hands. You can’t code your way out of changing adult diapers.

Some jobs just don’t scale — and not everyone can be a coder, quant, or cloud architect.

Q: Immigration is a short-term solution! We should be looking at how to increase our birth rates!

It absolutely is a short-term solution. And yes, we should be looking at how to increase our birth rates. Nothing in this article suggests otherwise. Singapore’s population problem needs to be solved by a combination of long-term and short-term solutions.

Q: Foreigners are taking jobs from Singaporeans!!!

Absolutely a concern, and this is most visible in PMET sectors, especially in finance, tech, and engineering.

While many work pass holders are in roles Singaporeans avoid — such as construction or eldercare — competition can be felt in white-collar roles, particularly if reskilling is slow or job protection is weak. Policies have been introduced to manage this, but enforcement and outcomes vary.

But the alternative is worse: If Singapore doesn't have the talent, companies will relocate out of Singapore. Then you’ll have to go overseas for a job.

Q: Is our education system not good enough? How come we have top unis but we need to import talent?

Singapore’s education system is strong, but it can’t meet all the needs of a fast-moving global economy. Top unis don’t always produce job-ready talent in fields like AI or biotech. Local grads often prefer stability over high-risk roles.

We also face brain drain — top Singaporeans leave too. Importing foreign talent fills urgent gaps, brings global networks, and helps anchor key industries here. It’s not a failure of education — it’s a numbers game and a strategic necessity. No country, especially one this small, can grow without tapping into global expertise. That’s just how the game is played.

Q: Why should immigrants get to use our system?

Most foreign workers contribute to Singapore’s tax base through income tax and employer levies, but receive limited access to public benefits. When they go private, they stimulate our economy.

Work permit and S Pass holders typically don’t receive subsidised housing, healthcare, or CPF employer contributions. Even Employment Pass holders don’t qualify for most citizen-focused schemes. On balance, they tend to contribute more than they withdraw, especially in the early years of stay.

Q: Isn’t this just about GDP growth for the sake of growth?

Tempting argument, but not necessarily. A larger economy enables continued funding of social services like healthcare and eldercare without raising taxes significantly. Yes, growth driven purely by population expansion — without corresponding wage growth or productivity improvements — can dilute GDP per capita and worsen inequality.

But here’s a thought: Nobody wants growth — until their kids can’t find good jobs, their CPF projections fall short, and their passport doesn’t open doors anymore.

Q: Can’t we just rely on AI & automation instead of people?

Singapore is already among the most automated economies globally, especially in manufacturing. But many essential services — like caregiving, cleaning, food service, and even construction — still require human labour. Automation can reduce reliance on manpower but can’t eliminate it. Moreover, adopting and maintaining automation requires skilled technicians, many of whom are currently foreign-trained.

(Also, aren’t you worried about AI taking away your job? If AI can do a foreigner’s job, AI will do it. Not you.)

Q: What about the erosion of our shared national identity? The influx of foreigners will undermine social cohesion!!

Friction is part of integration. Always has, always will be. Singapore was built by immigrants too so we know some of this — but unlike before, we no longer have decades to absorb newcomers. The clock is ticking, and we’re ageing fast.

PS: Even countries with more space and time struggled. In the US, Italians were once seen as undesirable and inferior. It took decades — and a world war — before they were accepted as mainstream.

TL;DR Friction is a natural part of integration. Up until the 1960s, Singapore was also made up of immigrants. Integration also takes time, but unfortunately Singapore doesn’t have the time.

---

If you’ve read this far, please consider subscribing to our email newsletter (yes, this Substack). We cannot offer you much but we can offer this:

• We have newsletter-exclusive articles that won’t be posted anywhere else. We created these articles for people who want to go deeper into complex issues than the shorter-form content we typically have.

• If you don’t have social media or don’t follow our Telegram channel, you can still get updates to all our content emailed directly to your inbox to read at your own time.

• We promise not to spam your inbox (but Substack might, so update your notification settings).