Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[mum_sugoku]

Just relax:

I am questioning the basis of the Workers Party's Population Paper where it proposes to get 1% of current non-working SG citizens back into the workforce?


How doable is this? Already SME's cannot get enough workers now, yet WP wants to freeze foreign workers at current level and start the process of getting this 1% working. What happens now? What happens for SME workforce during the period the 1% SG citizens being trained?

How realistic is this 1%? The majority of 1% would probably say if I could work I would have done it already. 2-3 incomes better than 1 but may have many reasons for not working, - looking after sick, dementia elderly parents or p-i-ls, looking after too many kids with no family support and childcare being too inconvenient or expensive, do not want maid because house too small already, spouse too ill to work so must look after, cannot afford to pay maid agency fee and maid salary upfront and cannot get loan, already working part-time but cannot do full-time. These are only some reasons. There are probably many other reasons.

So if WP strategy is to increase % working Singaporeans, how does it plan to deal with the above reasons. And mind you if you build more old folks home, hospitals, child care, mental care facilities, disability facilities, build bigger flats, etc. you still need foreign workers to build these facilities and to work there, so that the 1% of Singaporeans can go to work!!!

And what about the time spent to train up these Singaporeans? Who takes care of the different problems while these Singaporeans are being trained? Is on the job training feasible for all the jobs that WP thinks the 1% can do? So in the meantime when the stay at home mother/sister goes for part-time training at SHATEC to be a waitress or chef's assistant who looks after the elderly dementia father?, mentally disabled brother? 3 young children? etc.

So it appears that WP proposal is a circular argument. It looks good on paper but is it workable? Why have they not thought of a workable strategy instead of something that only appears good on paper but is impossible to implement?

But is perpetually relying on foreign workers the best solution? The Whitle Paper has projected such reliance, all the way till 2030, then what? With even more citizens becoming too old to work by 2030, wouldn't the need for more (younger) foreign workers be more acute? But if 6.9m is already the limit that our then infrastructure can accomodate, then how?

And I'm not the only one asking this, I've read many bloggers askiing the same question too, for eg, this NUS professor wrote:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/ben-leong/why-the-population-white-paper-is-ill-conceived/10151277988162549[quote]..I suspect again that the theory is that we want people to make more money and white-collar jobs make more, so more white-collar jobs are good -- and we will build the pyramids required to support these white-collared jobs by filling the base with foreigners in a sort of \"no-one-loses quasi-Ponzi scheme (http://piaroh.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/topspin/)\".

And even if we agree with this \"create-white-collar-by-stuffing-the-pyramid\" approach, is it sustainable? Can we stop at 2/3? Or are we going to keep stuffing?

If we are going to keep going with this, is 6.9 m enough? Keep in mind that if we do get to 6.9 million in 2030 according to the plan, we will hardly have any land and wriggle room left. Then how? [/quote]
And as far as I know, none of the supporters of While Paper is able to answer the \"what-happen-beyond-2030/6.9m\" question.. yet.

Or is it that beyond that, it's likely to be none-of-their-business anymore?

[pirate]

Just relax:

pirate:

The more interesting question so far as immigration is concerned is this.


Why did our gov grant Admir Suljic an Employment Pass (I am assuming he does not have PR!)? Straits Times reported that he was originally here on social visit pass, then got a high paying retailer job and lived in an apartment in the central region. More interestingly, he already had a previous conviction and had served time for match fixing before he came to Singapore.

So nowadays we grant Employment Passes to any Tom, Dick or Harry with criminal records? :yikes:

I assume you are being sarcastic here. Every application is dependent on the honesty of the applicant who has to declare no criminal conviction etc.

Unless MOM has evidence, how to deny permit? Even for Singaporeans, a criminal record is P&C and nobody can verify if a person has a Singapore criminal record. How do u check?

How come Straits Times can? Employment Pass Office never heard of Google? It was not exactly P&C... it was all over the European news.

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/croatia-indicts-21-over-match-fixing-scandal
http://www.deltaworld.org/sport/A-huge-corruption-scandal-shakes-Croatian-football/

Even the New Paper reported his previous 2010 conviction in an article on 31 Oct 2012 here

http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Sports/Story/A1Story20121030-380435.html

[pirate]

mum_sugoku:

And as far as I know, none of the supporters of While Paper is able to answer the \"what-happen-beyond-2030/6.9m\" question.. yet.


Or is it that beyond that, it's likely to be none-of-their-business anymore?

Assuming the White Paper is unworkable, so why is one unworkable solution better than the other unworkable solution?

I would very much like to see how the WP proposes to get older workers and SAHMs to become construction workers. :evil:

At least the PAP white paper is more honest. It says, this is our plan, it will take us economically to 2030, after that Singapore may become so overcrowded we may all fall into the sea unless somebody comes up with something different then.

At the very least, the WP paper should have been upfront. If it was honest, it would say, this is our plan. If it works, everything will be hunky dory in 2030. If it does not work, Singapore's economy may fall to bits within 5 years. Many of you may not have jobs, there may not be enough nurses in not enough hospitals so you may have to wait forever for a medical appointment, you may have to wait long long for a HDB flat and no, you cannot hire any FDWs.

Choose one.

[mum_sugoku]

pirate:

mum_sugoku:

And as far as I know, none of the supporters of While Paper is able to answer the \"what-happen-beyond-2030/6.9m\" question.. yet.


Or is it that beyond that, it's likely to be none-of-their-business anymore?

Assuming the White Paper is unworkable, so why is one unworkable solution better than the other unworkable solution?

I would very much like to see how the WP proposes to get older workers and SAHMs to become construction workers. :evil:

At least the PAP white paper is more honest. It says, this is our plan, it will take us economically to 2030, after that Singapore may become so overcrowded we may all fall into the sea unless somebody comes up with something different then.

At the very least, the WP paper should have been upfront. If it was honest, it would say, this is our plan. If it works, everything will be hunky dory in 2030. If it does not work, Singapore's economy may fall to bits within 5 years. Many of you may not have jobs, there may not be enough nurses in not enough hospitals so you may have to wait forever for a medical appointment, you may have to wait long long for a HDB flat and no, you cannot hire any FDWs.

Choose one.

Er.. if we don't need to build more and more buildings to house more and more people, why is there the need to increase the construction workers that we already have here?

Moreover, as we recruit even more construction workers, we would need more construction workers to build more accomodations for these new batches of construction workers, so on and so forth.. Would there be an end to such demand?

And as we have more and more people, the demand for healthcare will go up, cos these people--including the additional nurses that we need to import to cater to the increased demand--will fall sick too. Again, would there be an end to such demand?

To be frank, I also feel that WP's solution is not better than White Paper's. Just that it can buy more time (beyond 2030) than the later's proposal lor .

[WeiHan]

Irrelevant:

WeiHan:

You have made simplistic assumptions for economic issue that is too complex.


By your argument above, I guess you are trying to say that there is be inflation because of aging population if there is no fresh supply of young immigrants and foreign workers to provide the services but the conclusion is simply not true.

Just take Japan for example. They are suffering deflation, instead of inflation that you are trying to imply. This all happened while they have zero interest rate to stimulate spending ( abit of similar effect to your assumption of gov giving everybody $10 millions but it much more complex...Singapore gov can't afford to print such amount of out-of-thin-air money).

To understand more of Japan's economic woes, you have to trace its roots to the Plaza Accord (in 1985?) and the events leading to/following the Accord. Our challenges are somewhat different from theirs although demographically, we are facing an aging situation too.

If you are keen on a debate and an exchange of ideas, please indulge me and debate me on my scenario. My intention is to start with a simple scenario and then to add more variables subsequently. Otherwise, I rest my case.

If you attribute Japan's economic woes back to a monetary policy event, then you are implying aging population has a smaller role or even no role in Japan's present economic stagnation. Why didn't an aging population in Japan cause a wage inflation in Japan without a huge influx of foreign workers?

If you really want to exchange ideas, then it has to be done at a slow pace since I have a full time job and economics isn't really my forte. I think your scenario is too simple to give a definite answer. For example, the government gave everybody $10 millions, does that $10 millions come out of thin air (i.e the government printed them) or it actually come from actual saving from past hardwork? I think it makes a huge difference. Your scenario is too extreme such that it is not realistic also. Is akin asking if your money is still useful when you stray into a island with nobody else other than yourselves.

[pirate]

mum_sugoku:

Er.. if we don't need to build more and more buildings to house more and more people, why is there the need to increase the construction workers that we already have here?


Moreover, as we recruit even more construction workers, we would need more construction workers to build more accomodations for these new batches of construction workers, so on and so forth.. Would there be an end to such demand?

And as we have more and more people, the demand for healthcare will go up, cos these people--including the additional nurses that we need to import to cater to the increased demand--will fall sick too. Again, would there be an end to such demand?

To be frank, I also feel that WP's solution is not better than White Paper's. Just that it can buy more time (beyond 2030) than the later's proposal lor .

Those would be very good points for discussion. Unfortunately, the WP is not saying that we should:

(1) slow down the construction of HDB flats;
(2) expand the MRT network less;
(3) stop building new hospitals;
(4) have fewer nurses in the hospitals;
(5) not increase the number of pre-school teachers;
(6) make do with fewer FDWs; or
(7) be prepared to pay more for public transport, estate cleaning, meals outside, etc.

If only they did, we could have that sort of cost/benefit discussion in a meaningful way. Who knows? It may be a better approach than the White Paper. But we are not having that discussion. I guess because the WP figured it may not go down well with voters either.

[WeiHan]

pirate:

At the very least, the WP paper should have been upfront. If it was honest, it would say, this is our plan. If it works, everything will be hunky dory in 2030. If it does not work, Singapore's economy may fall to bits within 5 years. Many of you may not have jobs, there may not be enough nurses in not enough hospitals so you may have to wait forever for a medical appointment, you may have to wait long long for a HDB flat and no, you cannot hire any FDWs.

Choose one.

I fear that the above is a logic fallacy. If we are not increasing our population further, why is there a need to increase the number of nurses in our hospitals. If we are not increasing our population further, why do we need an increase of foreign construction workers, above what we already have, to accelerate a growth in homes construction? (note that it is not just an increase but accelerated growth)

[pirate]

WeiHan:

pirate:

At the very least, the WP paper should have been upfront. If it was honest, it would say, this is our plan. If it works, everything will be hunky dory in 2030. If it does not work, Singapore's economy may fall to bits within 5 years. Many of you may not have jobs, there may not be enough nurses in not enough hospitals so you may have to wait forever for a medical appointment, you may have to wait long long for a HDB flat and no, you cannot hire any FDWs.

Choose one.

I fear that the above is a logic fallacy. If we are not increasing our population further, why is there a need to increase the number of nurses in our hospitals. If we are not increasing our population further, why do we need an increase of foreign construction workers, above what we already have, to accelerate a growth in homes construction? (note that it is not just an increase but accelerated growth)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like I said one post above, let the WP say we won't be needing more of those construction workers, nurses, service staff etc because we don't need to build HDB flats, MRT system, hospitals so fast, and we won't need so many nurses to staff the hospitas etc. After that, we can have a meaningful discussion.

[mum_sugoku]

pirate:

I guess because the WP figured it may not go down well with voters either.

Ya. This is what I think too.

I'm afraid we'll just have to learn to adapt to a life less reliant on foreign workers (than we do now). And the route to self-reliance is not gonna be a pleasant one (I remember someone using \"cold turkey\" to describe the process). So ya, most voters will not like it..

However, if other countries can adapt and we can't, ultimately, we'll still lose out to the rest of the world..

Moreover, given our limited land size, it's only a matter of time (now? or 2030?) before we just have to wean ourselves off such reliance.

[WeiHan]

mum_sugoku:

To be frank, I also feel that WP's solution is not better than White Paper's. Just that it can buy more time (beyond 2030) than the later's proposal lor .

I disagree. WP's solution is reversible if we find that it doesn't work at all but the PAP's is irreversible if we later find out that it is catastrophic. 15 years into the program, we are already seeing ill effects of such policy.