“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” This well-known phrase, often attributed to Albert Einstein, seems lost on Singapore’s People’s Action Party (PAP) government when it comes to tackling the country’s declining total fertility rate (TFR).
Despite decades of initiatives aimed at encouraging Singaporeans to marry and have more children, the results remain dismal, and critics argue that the government’s reluctance to overhaul its approach is exacerbating the crisis.
Under the leadership of Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore’s population increased from 4.17 million in 2004 to 6.04 million as of June 2024.
Yet this growth masks a critical issue: it has been primarily driven by a rising non-resident population, while the resident TFR plunged from 1.26 in 2004 to a record low of 0.97 in 2023, according to government data.
The stark gap highlights the government’s heavy reliance on immigration to sustain population growth, raising doubts about the effectiveness of family-oriented policies in reversing demographic decline.
During a parliamentary debate on 5 February 2025, Progress Singapore Party (PSP) Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leong Mun Wai challenged the PAP’s stance, calling for a complete reimagining of policies instead of incremental adjustments.
Leong’s proposed amendment to a motion advocating continued policy reviews was rejected, with Minister Indranee Rajah defending the government’s efforts under the Forward Singapore (Forward SG) initiative.
However, many, including Leong, remain unconvinced, arguing that PAP’s approach is symptomatic of a deeper failure to admit past missteps and pursue bold reforms.
Hoarding Reserves for Whom? A Future Without Singaporeans
In his 2004 swearing-in speech as Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong highlighted the looming challenges of Singapore’s ageing population and declining birth rate.
“We must deal with complex and sensitive issues such as the ageing population, immigration, and encouraging more Singaporeans to get married and have more babies,” he said.
Yet, 20 years on, those promises remain largely unfulfilled. The TFR has continued its steady decline, and immigration remains the primary driver of population growth.
The 2013 White Paper on Population, which projected a population of 6.9 million by 2030, was met with public backlash due to its heavy reliance on immigration. Despite this, the government has shown little inclination to change course.
Leong warned, “The low TFR is an existential problem that should be treated as a national emergency. If the current birth rate persists, there will only be 12 great-grandchildren for every 100 Singaporeans born today.
There is little point in growing the reserves if we do not have a future generation to inherit them. We should use our hard-earned savings to invest in our people and reimagine our socio-economic policies so that more Singaporeans will consider parenthood a meaningful and attainable journey.”
In 2023, then-Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong once again reiterated the government’s long-standing commitment to saving and maintaining its current approach to national reserves—a familiar response that has been repeated whenever opposition parties call for more to be done and for a larger portion of the returns to be used for immediate needs.
Wong argued that Singapore is not “oversaving” and that the reserves are “barely keeping pace” with economic growth, given the 2 percent net return allocated annually to the reserves.
He stressed that increasing the proportion of investment returns used for government spending, as suggested by the opposition, could erode the reserves over time and compromise the country’s future.
As with previous debates, Wong defended the current framework as essential for long-term financial stability, sticking to the government’s consistent narrative.
However, this raises a critical question: What is the purpose of preserving the reserves if, in a few generations, the native Singaporeans who built this nation with their hard work and sacrifices may be gone—replaced by newcomers who benefit from their efforts without having contributed to them?
The government’s reluctance to confront this issue underscores its failure to address the long-term social consequences of its policies, leaving Singapore’s future identity and stability at risk.
The policy paradox: why incremental change won’t work
Indranee Rajah’s defence of Forward SG highlights the government’s claim that it is re-evaluating its policies.
However, Forward SG, launched in 2022 to refresh Singapore’s social compact, appears to be more of a platform to showcase that the government is taking action—an exercise in optics ahead of the general election, which must be held within the year, rather than a genuine effort to implement bold, transformative policies.
One would reasonably believe that, without bolder measures—such as addressing the financial burden of raising children, housing affordability, and work-life balance—the country’s TFR will continue to languish below 1.0, if not deteriorate further.
The blatant rejection of PSP’s Affordable Homes Scheme, which proposed deferring land costs for Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, without any meaningful consideration, highlights the government’s aversion to innovative solutions.
Indranee dismissed the proposal as a “raid on the reserves,” but this seems more like a deflection, reflecting an unwillingness to challenge the status quo.
“The current approach,” said Leong, “is a recipe for stagnation. Incremental tweaks won’t fix a problem that has persisted for decades.”
Global comparisons and local realities
Leong pointed out that Singapore’s TFR has been falling for many years, hitting a historic low of 0.97 in 2023, despite decades of policy interventions such as the Baby Bonus Scheme and increased parental leave.
He argued that the persistent decline over the past two decades highlights the failure of current policies to address deeper systemic issues.
He urged the government to learn from countries like France, where the TFR remains above 1.5 despite facing similar global trends.
Indranee downplayed the comparison, arguing that fertility is influenced by complex emotional factors beyond government control.
However, ignoring the success of other countries risks missing valuable lessons. Countries like France have shown that well-designed policies—such as affordable childcare, work-life balance, and financial support for families—can create a more family-friendly environment.
Leong stressed that Singapore’s low TFR is not inevitable and pointed to specific local challenges, including high housing costs, job insecurity, and inadequate parental leave, as key barriers that discourage parenthood.
He emphasized that relying on global trends as an explanation only obscures the fact that policy plays a significant role in shaping fertility outcomes.
Indranee’s reluctance to set a concrete TFR target underscores the government’s cautious approach.
While she argued that targets are unsuitable for matters involving personal decisions, Leong noted that setting a target is not about controlling individual choices but about ensuring that policies are effective and measurable. Without clear goals, policy efforts risk being unfocused and ineffective.
“Setting a target,” Leong argued, “is not about dictating personal decisions, but about creating policies that achieve real, tangible results.”
The road ahead: is the PAP willing to change course?
As Singapore faces a potential demographic crisis, the PAP’s current strategy seems ill-equipped to address the root causes of its declining birth rate.
The government’s reliance on immigration as a population buffer may provide short-term relief, but it risks undermining long-term social cohesion if native-born Singaporeans continue to shrink as a proportion of the population.
Leong’s warning rings clear: without a fundamental shift in policy and mindset, Singapore’s demographic problems will deepen.
If the PAP believes it is doing a good job despite two decades of a declining TFR, then perhaps the real problem lies in its inability—or refusal—to acknowledge failure. This stubbornness, as critics argue, could spell disaster in the coming decades.
As the debate continues, Singaporeans are left wondering if the government will finally heed the lessons of the past—or continue down the path of “insanity,” hoping for different results while repeating the same mistakes.
