Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
crony.in.ksp:
:goodpost:don't understand what the fury and noise is all about for the eventual 6.9 million people
sooner or later we will reach there, target or no target, worst scenario or not, if not 2030, may be 2040 or 2050
is better that the power-to-be plan and cater for it than to pretend it will not happen and let the squeeze continue
for those who think the PAP is just to get more votes via the new citizens (and not everyone of the population increase is a citizen btw), think again! knowing the hue and cry from the ground, they know full well the negative perceptions and this is a vote loser than a vote gainer, and yet they still think it is right to bring it out and bring it up now than not to do anything - they are not so foolish
many of you in the SMEs are laughing secretly in view of the increased business opportunities catering to the demands and needs of a larger population than a ageing and dying population
and many of you would be secretly heaving a sigh of relief for more younger people to shoulder the economic responsibility of looking after the aged and paying the cost of it -
Hmnn…let me try to see if I can find the root of the problem…
We need to state upfront that FTs are needed and we are not denying their contributions to the country. I think what’s making people unhappy is not just the squeeze. The hardware, the infrastructure, I believe the government is competent enough to deal with, since plans are already in the pipeline.
It’s the ARTIFICIAL inflation of the population number by importing too many FTs that’s worrying. Yes, we’ve made assumptions and planned for it, but will everything go as planned? Are we able to, or even prepared to deal with the final (unpredictable) outcome of this artificial engineering?
If the plan to achieve target population number was more holistic, reaching the target population size over the years through more “natural” means, I don’t think the cry would be so loud. Same ultimate number, perhaps stretched over a longer period with slightly lower GDP growth.
Oh yes, talking about the GDP growth. I agree we are a small country and we need to stay competitive in a global market. However, Singapore should not be so obsessed with growth, that people feel that they are just a pawn in a chess game. We are a nation, dealing with people, not the bottom line of a company. There must be a balance.
OK, coming back to the population number. I think it’s not just the numbers, it’s the final COMPOSITION of the numbers that people are unhappy. If the final population outcome is 70% - 80% locals while the rest FTs, people may be more accepting.
Why having majority locals is important? Most of us would have been either 2nd, 3rd or even 4th generation Singaporeans. We have already formed a certain national identity, uniquely Singapore. There are more reasons for the FTs who come to try to fit in to existing culture.
If it’s the other way round or even 1:1, the new FTs will bring along their inherited culture and stick to it. They can find enough of their own to feel the bond of their original countries, so they either change us with their ways, or they stick to themselves. Achieving social cohesiveness would be an uphill task, which is not good for a country.
The “Two is Enough” policy is also artificial engineering, but did anyone anticipate the situation now would be the outcome of it?
Anything that goes excessively against nature will backfire eventually. -
I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;
\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\"
......just so you know, be prepared to work longer, even WP says so.
Full speech here --> http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-population-for-a-sustainable-singapore-reclaiming-back-singapore-mp-sylvia-lim/ -
toddles:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Went something like that... replacing the words \"We can achieve, we can achieve\" with
\"We can be squeezed, we can be squeezed\"... :faint: -
crony.in.ksp:
Shouldn't the current & subsequent generations of the aged have substantial CPF savings by that time and can self support and government don't need to pay so much. Why need younger people to pay the cost? We are not a pension state. Unless the amount in CPF is not enough actually or the medical cost will be sky high by then.
and many of you would be secretly heaving a sigh of relief for more younger people to shoulder the economic responsibility of looking after the aged and paying the cost of it -
3Boys:
:goodpost:I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;
\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\" -
daddy2007:
CPF won't be enough.
Shouldn't the current & subsequent generations of the aged have substantial CPF savings by that time and can self support and government don't need to pay so much. Why need younger people to pay the cost? We are not a pension state. Unless the amount in CPF is not enough actually or the medical cost will be sky high by then.crony.in.ksp:
and many of you would be secretly heaving a sigh of relief for more younger people to shoulder the economic responsibility of looking after the aged and paying the cost of it
And it'd be even worse if people keep asking for early withdrawal, lowering contribution rates, and being a real pain about it in general. -
daddy2007:
You omitted my last sentence; \"......just so you know, be prepared to work longer, even WP says so.\"
:goodpost:3Boys:
I would like to highlight a section of Sylvia Lim's speech in parliament about the population white paper;
\"We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.\"
...which is the critical component of what I'm trying to put across. -
What's wrong with working longer :scratchhead:
Better than forced retirement just because a person hit a certain age, even though his/her mind & body is willing & capable of working for many more years -
sleepy:
I am completely in favour of working longer. But just wander onto the fora of PAP-haters and you get all the rubbish about how EVIL the g'ment is in extending the CPF withdrawal age and making our old folks work till they die.What's wrong with working longer :scratchhead:
Better than forced retirement just because a person hit a certain age, even though his/her mind & body is willing & capable of working for many more years
As long as people understand the trade-offs, its fine. It's when people stick their heads in the sand, then we have a problem.
PAP-haters, just so you know, WP is also advocating longer work-life.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login
