Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

concern2:

[quote=\"3Boys\"]

It's such an obvious piece of propaganda and you are falling for it?

I can also say 'Strong economic growth is in the best interest of Singaporeans'.

How, you believe me or not?

I don't get it. Why are we scrutinizing on WP's proposal? Is the White Paper very convincing? I find WP is over-doing. They don't have to propose, do they?

Because it's such a shamelessly inane piece of writing from the WP, which basically abuses their supporters and treats them (and others) like morons.

Yup, that's the beauty of being in the small minority opposition, you can propose something completely outrageous, safe in the knowledge that it will never get implemented, and yet people will go :goodpost: :goodpost: .....[/quote]Shameless? Propaganda?

I think it is still way better than a policy that has been tried out in the past decade, failed miserably but the proposer still insists stubbornly in going down the same path.

and is ironical...it is PAP supporters that always :goodpost: for whatever they say just like the one immediately below your post.

[dorisp]

WeiHan:

What is wrong with a more liberal attitude towards sex?


What is so good about traditional family values for us to cling to it?

Are countries with more permissive sex attitude really worse than us in a broad spectrum of measures?

I say, there is no concrete proofs that a victorian sex attitude leads to stronger society so why the need to cling to it?

:yikes:

Ok I must be terribly outdated..... :sad:

[Harlequin]

dorisp:

WeiHan:

What is wrong with a more liberal attitude towards sex?


What is so good about traditional family values for us to cling to it?

Are countries with more permissive sex attitude really worse than us in a broad spectrum of measures?

I say, there is no concrete proofs that a victorian sex attitude leads to stronger society so why the need to cling to it?

:yikes:

Ok I must be terribly outdated..... :sad:

You are not alone, dear.... count me in! :sad:
(Couldn't resist to post to agree with you that we must be freaking \"outdated\"; you got 15 votes here, my dinner guests they are...)

:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

All of us are as :sad: as you...

[WeiHan]

3Boys:

Figures show that children from normal 2-parent families do better in school, have higher self esteem, and are more successful in adult life. Not to say that those from broken homes don't make it, but the odds are slightly stacked.

Children from families that both parents work day and night did equally bad.

3Boys:

If a free-for-all is supposedly superior, then why, even in the most permissive societies, are there laws that allow for divorce on the grounds of adultery?

Adultery isn't in my definition of liberal. Adultery hurts someone feeling and it is a breech of trust.

3Boys:

Because like it or not, there are boundaries when it comes to sex and relationships. Like it or not, those boundaries are what we call values.

In fact, there are more fundamental values to adhere too. For me, Compassion will be one of them. Wathever one does should not harm another being. According to my definition, consensual adult sex (involving adults that are not already someone else spouse), outside of marriage, is acceptable.

3Boys:

Even the most permissive societies value families, and have laws that protect them. And if it is not values that define a family, that what does? If values do not define human behaviours, then what does?

See above

3Boys:

Just because you do not believe in or have experienced the power of 'traditional family values', does not mean that it does not exist of has no value for the rest of us.

Outside traditional values doesn't mean that there is no values. It is a different set of values. Many of the policies of those more permissive societies that you mentioned above is based on more modern humanistic value system instead of one that is prudish that many people here cherish even in the expense of becoming extinct.

[JannettLee]

Parliament endorses population White Paper by 77 votes to 13. some PAP MPs talked so much but still vote to support! Can they vote against in the very first place?


http://sg.news.yahoo.com/pm-lee-makes-passionate-appeal-for-population-white-paper-in-parliament-082910512.html
------------------------------------------------------------------

After a week-long heated debate, Parliament voted on Friday to endorse the population White Paper by 77 votes to 13, with one abstention.

Close to 6pm, Madam Speaker of Parliament Haalimah Yaacob called the House to a vote.

WP leader Low Thia Kiang stunned those in attendance by standing up to ask the Speaker for a division to the motion, effectively meaning the House could not decide to pass the paper by a verbal vote. The House doors were then locked and the assembly took to an electronic vote.

The nine Workers' Party MPs and NCMPs, Lina Chiam, along with Nominated Members of Parliament Janice Koh, Faizah Jamal and Laurence Lien all voted against the motion, while 77 voted in favour.

NMP Eugene Tan abstained from voting and later told Yahoo! Singapore that he initially planned to oppose the motion but decided to take a \"leap of faith\" after listening to PM Lee's parliament address.

\"I now have even higher expectations -- the government must not fail... I felt that the government was meeting me halfway, and for me (his vote to abstain) is a statement that I will keep an open mind.\"

Before the vote was held, PM Lee Hsien Loong had made an impassioned, emotional 90-minute plea that was broadcast live on national television, seeking to reassure Singaporeans that they remained \"at the heart of all we do\".

Saying he expects the total population in Singapore in 2030 to be \"significantly below\" the 6.9 million figure projected in the White Paper on Population last week, he urged Singaporeans to see beyond the rhetoric of the past week and understand that \"we are all in this together\".

\"So what will the total population in Singapore be?\" asked PM Lee at one point.

\"In my view in 2030, I think 6 million will not be enough to meet Singaporeans' needs as our population ages because of this problem of the baby boomers and bulge of ageing people,\" he said in a live televised address in Malay, Mandarin and finally English.

\"But I believe the total population in 2030 should be significantly below 6.9 million and beyond 2030, in the very long-term, it should not increase beyond that,\" he said.

PM Lee added that to project the population beyond 2020 was \"uncertain\" and \"for future generations to decide\" and that the 6.9 million figure that has drawn widespread criticism \"had been taken out of context.\"

He said the paper, more than being about numbers and the economy was to \"secure the future of this generation and future generations of Singaporeans\".

Recognising that many were concerned that the population in 2030 would only consist of 55% of core Singaporeans, he said, \"We will track and control so we will not be overwhelmed by the sheer flood of foreigners\".

In conclusion, PM Lee said Singapore would have to face tough choices and trade-offs in the years ahead but said \"We are all in this together, we have to go beyond the rhetoric and if we make the right choices our future is bright.\"

At one point, PM Lee was also seen choking up as he talked about the importance of retaining a \"Singapore core\" of people who have families and homes here and who were willing to defend the nation because \"we feel as one\" and \"share sorrows\" together.

Finally, he reassured Singaporeans and said \"You are at the heart of all of our policies. You are the reason why my key men and I entered politics… and we want Singapore to do well so Singaporeans can do well\" before concluding that he supported the amended motion.

The paper, which was published last week, sparked heated debate among Singaporeans both online and offline over the government’s projection that the city-state's population by 2030 could hit nearly 7 million.

It also said the country would have to continue to accept more immigrants, albeit at a slower pace than before, to sustain the country’s economic growth and offset the country’s low total fertility rate and ageing population.

[WeiHan]

dorisp:

WeiHan:

What is wrong with a more liberal attitude towards sex?


What is so good about traditional family values for us to cling to it?

Are countries with more permissive sex attitude really worse than us in a broad spectrum of measures?

I say, there is no concrete proofs that a victorian sex attitude leads to stronger society so why the need to cling to it?

:yikes:

Ok I must be terribly outdated..... :sad:

Define \"traditional\". Why are you so sad over something that you may not even fully grasped? I have already defined some other value system (humanistic value system) that have guided many countries policies making.

It is not as bad and lawless as many of you make it out to be, you know?

[sinoboy]

Happy CNY and happy :grphug: more new Singaporeans.

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

In fact, there are more fundamental values to adhere too. For me, Compassion will be one of them. Wathever one does should not harm another being. According to my definition, consensual adult sex (involving adults that are not already someone else spouse), outside of marriage, is acceptable.


Outside traditional values doesn't mean that there is no values. It is a different set of values. Many of the policies of those more permissive societies that you mentioned above is based on more modern humanistic value system instead of one that is prudish that many people here cherish even in the expense of becoming extinct.

Well, my DW and I are prudish, and we ain't extinct. My parents are prudes, married for 45 years, and they had 3 children.

So much for your theory.

[3Boys]

WeiHan:

dorisp:

[quote=\"WeiHan\"]What is wrong with a more liberal attitude towards sex?


What is so good about traditional family values for us to cling to it?

Are countries with more permissive sex attitude really worse than us in a broad spectrum of measures?

I say, there is no concrete proofs that a victorian sex attitude leads to stronger society so why the need to cling to it?

:yikes:

Ok I must be terribly outdated..... :sad:

Define \"traditional\". Why are you so sad over something that you may not even fully grasped? I have already defined some other value system (humanistic value system) that have guided many countries policies making.

It is not as bad and lawless as many of you make it out to be, you know?[/quote]Tell me which countries base their policies on humanist principles? And how many of those so-called 'humanist' principles are based on traditional religious principles on how people relate to each other?

[sunflower]

cimman:

sunflower:

Actually, I do see some flaws in the WP’s proposals while scanning through. Not going to say anything at this point of time, until I see more concrete plans and implementation strategies.

actually, the implementation strategy is where things normally fall apart. The strategic direction is alright, but flops when it comes to implementation. One can't really predict a good successful implementation strategy, however, with a good feedback system and a pro active approach, the initial strategy can be fine tuned to make the strategic direction a practical reality.

One very simple example of where strategy and practical reality diverge. In, let's say a forum which deals in primary school education, :evil: , the forum has multiple threads for Science, Maths, English, Chinese (strategy). People are supposed to post questions in the relevant forum threads. You will find people posting Maths questions in Science forum, etc... :slapshead: Without a good checks and balance system, the initial direction will fall apart.

Crafting of national policies is not something to be taken lightly. There must be evidence that thorough thought process has taken place to anticipate and prepare for possible outcomes.

I understand where you are coming from and agree that it’s usually at the implementation stage that things fall apart. Maybe I should use the words \"strategic directions\" instead to be more accurate. My point is that for a proposal to sound convincing, there must be concrete plans, at least an outline of strategies before we are sure something will work, that foreseeable problems have been considered and accounted for.

Having something solid will also help tremendously in answering questions from the other party during parliamentary debate.

:idea: Or is it WP’s role to just propose and convince PAP to accept the proposal, and expect government to later come out with concrete plans and strategies for implementation? Then after that “check” that it’s properly done? :scratchhead:

To be fair, there’s little time for WP to come out with detailed proposals. It took one year for PAP to produce the white paper, but WP only have a few days to come out with something.

What I’m thinking is perhaps WP could scrutinize the white paper, try to find loopholes and all possible ill effects as a result of implementing the policy, or possible scenarios that may work AGAINST the success of the projected outcomes. All these, of course, need to be supported by strong arguments and well-researched documentations/evidences of past experience from our country or others. Bombard with questions and problems that are foreseeable to arise, examine the points and texts from the white paper and think critically, ask why this or that approach instead are not taken, rather than come out with something that they do not have time to fully prepare and let the other party “tekan” them.