How do you feel about the ageing population of Singapore?
-
minister mentor. *shakes leg*
-
The mercenary heartless regime pap is trying ways and means to shirk responsibilities to take care of the old. IN fact, majority of the old people I talked to don't think well of PAP.
-
I'm not actually expecting them to screw up. You will notice that our present govt will not be taken hostage or bow down to public opinion. But i do expect them to be a little more liberal in their views and policies, especially after we mourn the old man on his deathbed.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:True. So we have to hope the Government screws up mighty big time after the old man takes his turn in the grave.
But truth to tell, there are lots of people in power, who believe in his style of leadership, and they would go to extreme ends. If we think idiots like Mat Toro, Gazelle and Oxford Mushroom are unique, that is where we are wrong. What might come after might be a dictatorship in an attempt to preserve status quo.
As i recall, the first person to intercede on the govt's behalf in disgust over perceived public backlash concerning the exhorbitant marking-up of ministerial salaries was the old man himself, with the now infamous words "this country requires a dose of incompetent leadership".
It is this kind of adverse leadership that is strangling the life from our current leadership. It's a pity the old man will not live to see the changes. -
To succeed, he'd first have to oust the Stalins, Hitlers, Milosevics, Kims and Saddams from the pecking order - don't overestimate the power of a despot who's nothing more than a coward and a bootlicker in the international fold...Originally posted by qlqq9:A good question to ask, only heaven knows the answer. Probably the King of Hell is unwilling to let him go for he is afraid his position will be taken over. -
If you would read that in the right context, you couldn't be more mistaken.Originally posted by kramnave:Even economists believe that OLD Lee's leadership is the way to go for developing countries. As much as the west criticises violation of human rights worldwide, they in fact are fueling it in the name of development and globalisation.
Barring those economists whose views are self-censored for fear of recrimination and being silenced by a bunch of despots, I'm hard pressed to find such views. While many have drawn parallels and lauded the policies of this regime in fuelling economic growth and globalisation, they're in truth having a blast at some of the protectionistic policies adopted by some of the European countries - by no means is that an endorsement of this regime's self-proclaimed brand of seemingly utopian success. -
One very important thing the garmen must do is to address the income inequality issue. As the population ages the income gulf will widen exponentially.
-
One possible way is to attract the rich and retain the Singapore rich. Perhaps now Singapore is moving in the right direction by building waterways, IR, FI. There must be a significant factor in retaining them. After they fall into the trap, then robin hood them. Whether we can/will do that is another story.Originally posted by pearlie27:One very important thing the garmen must do is to address the income inequality issue. As the population ages the income gulf will widen exponentially. -
Sounds niceOriginally posted by kramnave:One possible way is to attract the rich and retain the Singapore rich. Perhaps now Singapore is moving in the right direction by building waterways, IR, FI. There must be a significant factor in retaining them. After they fall into the trap, then robin hood them. Whether we can/will do that is another story. -
Economists are fighting the case for more sweatshops in developing countries. They claim that it was the stepping stone for our success. Having a job is better than none they say. Having children in factories beats sending them to prostitution or begging on the streets. Factory workers continue to die from work related deaths. Children continue to be exploited, sometimes resulting in death. Children continue to be abducted and enslaved, all in the name of development. We read of China's economic success but who actually bothers about what goes on behind the scenes?Originally posted by walesa:If you would read that in the right context, you couldn't be more mistaken.
Barring those economists whose views are self-censored for fear of recrimination and being silenced by a bunch of despots, I'm hard pressed to find such views. While many have drawn parallels and lauded the policies of this regime in fuelling economic growth and globalisation, they're in truth having a blast at some of the protectionistic policies adopted by some of the European countries - by no means is that an endorsement of this regime's self-proclaimed brand of seemingly utopian success. -
That's just a lob-sided stance, ain't it? You hardly need Einstein's IQ to know the whole chunk you've just cited is anything but objective, do you?Originally posted by kramnave:Economists are fighting the case for more sweatshops in developing countries. They claim that it was the stepping stone for our success. Having a job is better than none they say. Having children in factories beats sending them to prostitution or begging on the streets. Factory workers continue to die from work related deaths. Children continue to be exploited, sometimes resulting in death. Children continue to be abducted and enslaved, all in the name of development. We read of China's economic success, who really bothers about what goes on behind the scenes.
Why not cite the views of those who reckon folks working below minimum wage (or any form of remuneration below sustainable living maintenance) are hardly benefitting from globalisation and economic development? After all, if your theory stood exhaustively, child labour should be encouraged, shouldn't it? -
If you read carefully without any bias you would have realised that what i'm saying is that the developed world encourages globalisation for development. In the name of globalisation, the poor and the children are being exploited and economists are calling for more sweatshops. The west condemns violation of human rights but they are the very ones who are fueling it.Originally posted by walesa:That's just a lob-sided stance, ain't it? You hardly need Einstein's IQ to know the whole chunk you've just cited is anything but objective, do you?
Why not cite the views of those who reckon folks working below minimum wage (or any form of remuneration below sustainable living maintenance) are hardly benefitting from globalisation and economic development? After all, if your theory stood exhaustively, child labour should be encouraged, shouldn't it? -
I must apologise for the misunderstanding though. Shall amend the last sentence that caused it. Should be a " ? " instead of "."
-
Aging population.....dunno.....Im not even sure that this problem can be fixed...
Look at Japan....some European countries....Hong Kong.....have they fixed their demographic problem...?
So what makes you think Singapore can fix it...?
It is a natural societal progression, unfortunately.
BTW just today I read that 20% of Hong Kongers live in poverty, and they have a wider income gap compared to 20 years ago. Most of the poorer people are older people.
Maybe....Singapore is somewhat heading for this path as well.....
And....no fix...
Really....no fix....baby bonus etc cannot do anything, because it doesnt change the nature of the society......high living cost, service heavy workforce, high property cost, mature economy.....so in the end, fewer babies.
If those fundamental factors dont change....then nothing will change...
http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20070916-25623.html -
As society are moving forward, we aim for perfection & results. We don't want unnecessary objects to obstruct us
So I guess when they grew old, they do not want to be a burden because they are so use to being independent & 'perfect', it's hard to break their cycle
-
What are you on about?Originally posted by kramnave:If you read carefully without any bias you would have realised that what i'm saying is that the developed world encourages globalisation for development. In the name of globalisation, the poor and the children are being exploited and economists are calling for more sweatshops. The west condemns violation of human rights but they are the very ones who are fueling it.
The developed world neither encourages nor discourages globalisation and if anything, their governments (most responsible ones anyway) are doing their darndest to ensure the basic and most fundamental rights of its citizenry are protected (call it political ploy or otherwise, but the mechanisms to enforce a certain degree of protectionism is certainly there) and not simply ride the tide of globalisation blindly (as is the case in this regime) for sheer profit without the slightest regard for the marginalised.
For you to suggest the west being guilty of fuelling the human rights violations on the basis of your logic is akin to pinning the blame on arms manufacturers for every death induced by a weapon. So what's next on the cards? Outlawing arms manufacturers or anything that could potentially be used as a weapon? -
Between Stalin and LKY, Stalin at least have a real iron fist.Originally posted by walesa:To succeed, he'd first have to oust the Stalins, Hitlers, Milosevics, Kims and Saddams from the pecking order - don't overestimate the power of a despot who's nothing more than a coward and a bootlicker in the international fold...
LKY doesn't. -
I'm on about what the west does to other countries, not what they do to their own citizens.Originally posted by walesa:What are you on about?
The developed world neither encourages nor discourages globalisation and if anything, their governments (most responsible ones anyway) are doing their darndest to ensure the basic and most fundamental rights of its citizenry are protected (call it political ploy or otherwise, but the mechanisms to enforce a certain degree of protectionism is certainly there) and not simply ride the tide of globalisation blindly (as is the case in this regime) for sheer profit without the slightest regard for the marginalised.
For you to suggest the west being guilty of fuelling the human rights violations on the basis of your logic is akin to pinning the blame on arms manufacturers for every death induced by a weapon. So what's next on the cards? Outlawing arms manufacturers or anything that could potentially be used as a weapon? -
Let's put it this way. It's up to each individual country to protect its own citizens, and when it comes to China, protecting individual rights, is something rarely seen unless you are a Communist Party member.Originally posted by kramnave:I'm on about what the west does to other countries, not what they do to their own citizens.
Also, it is misleading to confuse a company with the country's government. Capitalism in general doesn't care a fib about citizens' welfare. This is where a Government comes in. Otherwise, what's the frakking point of a government? -
-
So? And how might that backup your much-hyped notion that economists are actually lauding up the economic model adopted by this regime as something the developed world should emulate?Originally posted by kramnave:I'm on about what the west does to other countries, not what they do to their own citizens.
As a matter of fact, even taking your argument at face value, I haven't got the faintest clue about what you perceive as the "west doing to other countries". Your beloved regime is forcefully doing a lot more to you than what the "west are doing to other countries" through pressure by proxy... -
Oh yes, Myanmar anyone? Isn't Singapore one of the few regimes bankrolling that junta there?Originally posted by walesa:So? And how might that backup your much-hyped notion that economists are actually lauding up the economic model adopted by this regime as something the developed world should emulate?
As a matter of fact, even taking your argument at face value, I haven't got the faintest clue about what you perceive as the "west doing to other countries". Your beloved regime is forcefully doing a lot more to you than what the "west are doing to other countries" through pressure by proxy... -
hmmmmOriginally posted by qlqq9:The mercenary heartless regime pap is trying ways and means to shirk responsibilities to take care of the old. IN fact, majority of the old people I talked to don't think well of PAP. -
It doesn't seem to stop there. As things stand, it seems that bankrolling the last outpost of tyranny has begun in earnest recently with this regime's sudden interest in the Kaesong Industrial Region - by all accounts, shameless profiteering is acceptable even if it comes at the expense of abject human and labour rights violations.Originally posted by Fingolfin_Noldor:Oh yes, Myanmar anyone? Isn't Singapore one of the few regimes bankrolling that junta there?
Now, that surely is something the West should look up to for greed and desperation knows no bounds to tyrants who regard it worthy to be associated with the Great Leader and the Dear Leader.