Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
WeiHan:
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.
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:
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.
-
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. -
mum_sugoku:
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.
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
. -
pirate:
It is implicit in the WP's proposal. WP didn't propose a total reduction in FWs but a very slow increase.
Those would be very good points for discussion. Unfortunately, the WP is not saying that we should: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 .
(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.
1. Construction of HDB flats won't slow down since we are not sending back foreign constrcution workers that are already here.
2. MRT network. Reasoning same as construction of HDB flats.
3. Same as the above 2 points. Why should there be a stop in new construction of hospitals just because we don't increase FWs further.
4. Why will there be fewer nurses in hospital since slowing down the increase doesn't mean sending back those that are already here.
5. Maybe hard to increase pre-school teachers but certainly it won't decrease base on the reasoning given above for other sectors.
6. Same as above
7. Same as above. -
WeiHan:
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.
Beyond the political rhetoric and empty promises of unachievable increases in productivity and TFR, the only difference between the PAP and WP's proposals is that the PAP's paper calls for a gradual reduction while the WP's proposal calls for cold turkey.
If people think that ratcheting up the pressure on businesses is not going to lead to businesses passing down the pressure to their employees, thereby messing with their work-life balance, they have been chomping on hypno mushrooms in cloud la-la land.
I am all for less reliance on foreign workers, talents and what-have-yous. Pay more anybody? If that happens, don't complain that only the rich can pay for those little conveniences that we have become so used to, ok? In the \"good old days\", only the rich can afford live-in maids. Now, even HDB 4-room flat dwellers can... -
WeiHan:
It is naive to think that once the economy is badly impacted, all we have to do is all the foreigners to come in and all will be well.
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.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 .
First the business that have found more suitable countries would be in no hurry to shift to Singapore. Local SME that have gone bust because of the above + lack of workers , will take time to come back.
Second , would FWs want to come in?
Singapore has established a name of being business friendly. You lose that image , it takes time to undo the damage.
Nation building should flexible but not trial and error
-
Sun_2010:
Something isn't just right in what you said.
It is naive to think that once the economy is badly impacted, all we have to do is all the foreigners to come in and all will be well.
First the business that have found more suitable countries would be in no hurry to shift to Singapore. Local SME that have gone bust because of the above + lack of workers , will take time to come back.
Second , would FWs want to come in?
Singapore has established a name of being business friendly. You lose that image , it takes time to undo the damage.
Nation building should flexible but not trial and error
We already have the largest FWs workforce in the world. Just because that we are not increasing further, we are not business friendly? I say, the G'ment should just stop the fear mongering. -
WeiHan:
Ok lor. Maybe:It is implicit in the WP's proposal. WP didn't propose a total reduction in FWs but a very slow increase.
1. Construction of HDB flats won't slow down since we are not sending back foreign constrcution workers that are already here.
2. MRT network. Reasoning same as construction of HDB flats.
3. Same as the above 2 points. Why should there be a stop in new construction of hospitals just because we don't increase FWs further.
4. Why will there be fewer nurses in hospital since slowing down the increase doesn't mean sending back those that are already here.
5. Maybe hard to increase pre-school teachers but certainly it won't decrease base on the reasoning given above for other sectors.
6. Same as above
7. Same as above.
(1) The current construction pace for new HDB flats is fast enough, so the current wait for BTO flats to be completed is not too long after all.
(2) The current MRT network expansion rate is fast enough because it is not overcrowded yet and is already convenient enough.
(3) The current pace of new hospitals is ok. There are enough hospital beds for our current needs already when you and I get older.
(4) The new hospitals that will be built do not require nurses to staff.
(5) Let's not increase the teacher to student ratio.
(6) It's ok to make it impossible for households who do not currently employ a FDW to employ one unless some other household gives up theirs. How about a COE system for FDWs?
(7) There is no need for more bus drivers, train operators etc. Current levels of service are adequate.
QED. Problem solved.
-
pirate:
(6) It's ok to make it impossible for households who do not currently employ a FDW to employ one unless some other household gives up theirs. How about a COE system for FDWs?
Lets see which party has the guts to say this . My vote goes to them for their sheer audacity.
QED. Problem solved. -
pirate:
I suppose you meant to be sarcastic.
Ok lor. Maybe:WeiHan:
It is implicit in the WP's proposal. WP didn't propose a total reduction in FWs but a very slow increase.
1. Construction of HDB flats won't slow down since we are not sending back foreign constrcution workers that are already here.
2. MRT network. Reasoning same as construction of HDB flats.
3. Same as the above 2 points. Why should there be a stop in new construction of hospitals just because we don't increase FWs further.
4. Why will there be fewer nurses in hospital since slowing down the increase doesn't mean sending back those that are already here.
5. Maybe hard to increase pre-school teachers but certainly it won't decrease base on the reasoning given above for other sectors.
6. Same as above
7. Same as above.
(1) The current construction pace for new HDB flats is fast enough, so the current wait for BTO flats to be completed is not too long after all.
(2) The current MRT network expansion rate is fast enough because it is not overcrowded yet and is already convenient enough.
(3) The current pace of new hospitals is ok. There are enough hospital beds for our current needs already when you and I get older.
(4) The new hospitals that will be built do not require nurses to staff.
(5) Let's not increase the teacher to student ratio.
(6) It's ok to make it impossible for households who do not currently employ a FDW to employ one unless some other household gives up theirs. How about a COE system for FDWs?
(7) There is no need for more bus drivers, train operators etc. Current levels of service are adequate.
QED. Problem solved.
But don't forget the current strangle in infrustructure is exactly due to improperly planned population increase. Now, you are turning around to tell us that population increase will solve the problem?
At least, without further population increase, I can be sure the current infrustructure problem will gradually be digested and solved but with further increase, I am not too certain.
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 š
Register Login