Singapore's population up almost 200,000 between 2006 & 2007
-
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/364095/1/.html
Singapore's population up almost 200,000 between 2006 and 2007
By Hasnita A Majid, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 31 July 2008 2003 hrsSINGAPORE : Singapore's population rose by almost 200,000 between 2006 and 2007.
As of last year, total population stood at 4.59 million, up from 4.4 million in 2006. Of these, 3.58 million were citizens and permanent residents.
The latest Yearbook of Statistics released on Thursday also showed there were 39,490 births last year, up by over 1,100 babies compared to the previous year.
Marriage inched up again, registering its highest number in five years.
Last year, 23,966 couples tied the knot, up 260 from 2006. But this is still down by 1,701 compared to a decade ago, which saw 25,667 marriages registered in 1997.
More are also delaying marriage. Last year, the median age for the groom was 29.8 years old, compared with 28.4 in 1997.
For the women, the median age of brides was 27.2 last year, up from 25.7 about a decade ago. - CNA /ls
-
next year the median age for brides will be 36 y.o.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
next year the median age for brides will be 36 y.o.
lol i tot i read in the newpaper today it said the median age for woman to get married is 27 yrs old -
what i don't understand is this insane drive to push up the population...
none of the idiot politicians have given us a proper answer to that question
-
Yes, I am delaying my marriage.
-
Advertisement
For every Singaporean citizen you get, we (India and China) will equal that and send them in to Singapore!
And best of all! Every 10 foreigners sent, will earn you a bonus 10!
-
Originally posted by Maith:
lol i tot i read in the newpaper today it said the median age for woman to get married is 27 yrs old
hehehe.....the newspaper is correct, me just poking fun at someone with that age. -
Originally posted by the Bear:
what i don't understand is this insane drive to push up the population...
none of the idiot politicians have given us a proper answer to that question
simple.we have too much capital, by increasing population it will lead to more GDP growth.
increasing the 3rd world immigrants also drives down the wages of Singaporeans, which is always sticky downwards.
-
so, it's all about GDP growth...
hmmm.. remember Ong Teng Chong? he said this:
First principles were stood on their heads. Economic growth and social progress did not serve human beings. On the contrary, the primary function of citizens was to fuel economic growth - a weird reversal of roles.
-
The crowded situation is getting worse.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
simple.we have too much capital, by increasing population it will lead to more GDP growth.
increasing the 3rd world immigrants also drives down the wages of Singaporeans, which is always sticky downwards.
Not tax and money the PAP is after. Would they be that stupid?
Just cream off, by say X%, on the return of our reserve can made them richer than increasing GDP. And we, the citizens, don't even know the exact reserve to begin with.
All this years, the PAP has been facing a slow but steady declining support base. By bringing in the foreigners, this will increase the support base of the PAP. At least, let this be a temporary or a last ditch measure to hold the tide of change.
Now I know some people will accuse me of generalising. But hold a second. At another posting, someone accused me being naive. Yes, the foreigners can also vote against the PAP - no doubt about this. But we are talking about trend and prediction, not individual reaction.
Who are these foreigners that come to our shores? Using a scale of one to four where I would classify one being as follows: The highly sort after scholar plus enterprenuer.
Are they anywhere near the scale of one? Are they the Bill Gate of Microsoft or anywhere close to an entrepreneur, not to mention the highly sort after scholar/entrepreneur that the world is after? The answer is no. All of your can see for yourselves, I need not go into this.Most of them are from regional countries where the standard of living is poorer and the quality of life is also poorer. Singapore is a paradise to them where they can earn more, have better quality of life and enjoy richer standard of living. Singapore also allows them to plug into a first rate, readily-made infrastructure and first-class technology.
They have the best of both third and first worlds. They can save more, enjoy better quality of life compare to working back home and they enjoy labour/skill/wealth mobilities that their poorer fellow countrymen can only dream about.
If they become citizens, would they not be grateful to their host country? And vote for status quo? -
if the spore population is 4.6m, 1m is foreigners, i suspect there should be at least 0.8-1.1m are PR (singapore stats do not split singaporean and pr or not that i can find anyway). old info did mentioned that in 1980, about 4% are pr, but then getting singapore pr is harder than striking 4d those days. my belief is that % and absolute numbers have grown exponentially in the last 28 years given the floodgate that opens in 2000s.
assuming that, therefore, singaporeans will stand at 2.5m vs 2.1m pr/foreigners.
come 2011, will foreigners/pr outnumber singaporeans for the first time? macam qatar?
-
It used to be, throw a stone and likely you will hit a graduate.
Try throwing a stone now and you will likely hit a foreigner in Singapore.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
It used to be, throw a stone and likely you will hit a graduate.
Try throwing a stone now and you will likely hit a foreigner in Singapore.
how big a stone?
don't you know you could end up killing someone.
-
Originally posted by 00011000:
Not tax and money the PAP is after. Would they be that stupid?
Just cream off, by say X%, on the return of our reserve can made them richer than increasing GDP. And we, the citizens, don't even know the exact reserve to begin with.
All this years, the PAP has been facing a slow but steady declining support base. By bringing in the foreigners, this will increase the support base of the PAP. At least, let this be a temporary or a last ditch measure to hold the tide of change.
Now I know some people will accuse me of generalising. But hold a second. At another posting, someone accused me being naive. Yes, the foreigners can also vote against the PAP - no doubt about this. But we are talking about trend and prediction, not individual reaction.
Who are these foreigners that come to our shores? Using a scale of one to four where I would classify one being as follows: The highly sort after scholar plus enterprenuer.
Are they anywhere near the scale of one? Are they the Bill Gate of Microsoft or anywhere close to an entrepreneur, not to mention the highly sort after scholar/entrepreneur that the world is after? The answer is no. All of your can see for yourselves, I need not go into this.Most of them are from regional countries where the standard of living is poorer and the quality of life is also poorer. Singapore is a paradise to them where they can earn more, have better quality of life and enjoy richer standard of living. Singapore also allows them to plug into a first rate, readily-made infrastructure and first-class technology.
They have the best of both third and first worlds. They can save more, enjoy better quality of life compare to working back home and they enjoy labour/skill/wealth mobilities that their poorer fellow countrymen can only dream about.
If they become citizens, would they not be grateful to their host country? And vote for status quo"At another posting, someone accused me being naive"
Absolutely true. If your only stable source of income comes from the seat you are seating on and someone tries to steal it, wouldn't you do something about it?
Btw our forefathers were also immigrants.
-
Originally posted by the Bear:
what i don't understand is this insane drive to push up the population...
none of the idiot politicians have given us a proper answer to that question
Back in the 70s, Spore had only 1.5million people. The people were largely uneducated, HDB flats was only 10 storeys high, our reserves were only a hundred million.
Our neighbours were outstripping us in price of their cottage industrial goods, leaving many earning little. We could only invest in a few heavy industries, jobs only for a few. We have no other natural resources, such as australia with their minerals, or HK that had no future and thus no need for reserves, for they will belong back to CCP China.
MM LKY realized this, and cutting down the 10 children a family to 2 per family will ensure we could survive as a nation, with enough taxes for social spending for a smaller population, with smaller needs. Many agreed to it, and thus the success of such a family policy.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, our previous generation astounded him with their drive and zeal. They work and studied hard, became more intelligent and resourceful, and fuel our economic status to first world status. We, as a nation, succeeded impressively where other nations failed.
Our flats and condos rosed to 30 storey highs. Landed property could be subdivided. '5 foot ways' shophouses were restructure for more roads to be created. Land was recreated to be of more efficient use. With our first world status, rule of law, and educated hardworking english speaking workforce, more MNC came to set up shop.
By the late 90s, we could easily maintain a population of 6 million, with enough money for social spending. But unfortunately, our family policies were too successive to the stage whereby we became so coldly calculative, our females would only marry the rich ( only 10% of our population) or none at all. They became so coldly calculative that they want all benefits, no sacrifice, if they are to give births.
Thus the population decline, and the State( our society) facing an aging population, whom will be out of work soon, and will need to be supported - social spending and healthcare, which they cannot afford on their own.
With lesser population, transportation will be a problem to provide the high standards we want, for there is not enough to form 'economies of scale'. MRT lines was a tough fight from the start because MM LKY did not believe it could be sustainable with a declining population.
Many in the govt circles had their doubts. PM Lee called for 'more babies'. This is the only way out that we can survive as a nation. With more citizens, we will have enough for social spending through creative taxation such as GST.
More new citizens means our elderly, whom had sacrifice much in nation building, could be taken care of, without taxing the current citizens more.
More citizens means there is a critical mass of passengers to justify more better national transportation services.
More citizens means we can expand our workforce into newer economic horizons.
More citizens means we do not need to relay on questionable machines or mercenaries for defence.
Only when we reach the critical stage of 6 million, then do we need to do a rethink on family policies,by assessing our passed on citizens rate.
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Back in the 70s, Spore had only 1.5million people. The people were largely uneducated, HDB flats was only 10 storeys high, our reserves were only a hundred million.
Our neighbours were outstripping us in price of their cottage industrial goods, leaving many earning little. We could only invest in a few heavy industries, jobs only for a few. We have no other natural resources, such as australia with their minerals, or HK that had no future and thus no need for reserves, for they will belong back to CCP China.
MM LKY realized this, and cutting down the 10 children a family to 2 per family will ensure we could survive as a nation, with enough taxes for social spending for a smaller population, with smaller needs. Many agreed to it, and thus the success of such a family policy.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, our previous generation astounded him with their drive and zeal. They work and studied hard, became more intelligent and resourceful, and fuel our economic status to first world status. We, as a nation, succeeded impressively where other nations failed.
Our flats and condos rosed to 30 storey highs. Landed property could be subdivided. '5 foot ways' shophouses were restructure for more roads to be created. Land was recreated to be of more efficient use. With our first world status, rule of law, and educated hardworking english speaking workforce, more MNC came to set up shop.
By the late 90s, we could easily maintain a population of 6 million, with enough money for social spending. But unfortunately, our family policies were too successive to the stage whereby we became so coldly calculative, our females would only marry the rich ( only 10% of our population) or none at all. They became so coldly calculative that they want all benefits, no sacrifice, if they are to give births.
Thus the population decline, and the State( our society) facing an aging population, whom will be out of work soon, and will need to be supported - social spending and healthcare, which they cannot afford on their own.
With lesser population, transportation will be a problem to provide the high standards we want, for there is not enough to form 'economies of scale'. MRT lines was a tough fight from the start because MM LKY did not believe it could be sustainable with a declining population.
Many in the govt circles had their doubts. PM Lee called for 'more babies'. This is the only way out that we can survive as a nation. With more citizens, we will have enough for social spending through creative taxation such as GST.
More new citizens means our elderly, whom had sacrifice much in nation building, could be taken care of, without taxing the current citizens more.
More citizens means there is a critical mass of passengers to justify more better national transportation services.
More citizens means we can expand our workforce into newer economic horizons.
More citizens means we do not need to relay on questionable machines or mercenaries for defence.
Only when we reach the critical stage of 6 million, then do we need to do a rethink on family policies,by assessing our passed on citizens rate.
More citizens means there is a critical mass of passengers to justify more better national transportation services.
LOL! Public transport will improve even if there is no critical mass of passengers. Their aim is to give quick and reliable transportation to the people.There is no concern for numbers. Having more passengers may pressure them into increasing the efficiency of the transport system in a shorter duration, but i think the numbers would most likely hinder our transport system and create an uncomfortable environment for all of us.
More citizens means we do not need to relay on questionable machines or mercenaries for defence.
Not really. Most Singaporean don't aim to have a military career. This can be seen by our small number of regulars despite aggressive advertising. There will be more NS folks, but i don't think that they could match up with the regulars when it comes to combat. Also, even if we hit a population of 6m, our military force, regular and NS, will still be quite small.
Only when we reach the critical stage of 6 million, then do we need to do a rethink on family policies,by assessing our passed on citizens rate.
You don't wait till a problem happens before taking action. Don't your school teach you that?
More citizens means we can expand our workforce into newer economic horizons.
More citizens also equates to more competition and manpower and this may result in a lower average pay for everyone, making our live more miserable.
More new citizens means our elderly, whom had sacrifice much in nation building, could be taken care of, without taxing the current citizens more.
And we will face a more serious aging problem when the "new citizen" become elders. And you can count on it that the money will come from our pockets.
Many in the govt circles had their doubts. PM Lee called for 'more babies'. This is the only way out that we can survive as a nation. With more citizens, we will have enough for social spending through creative taxation such as GST.
With more citizens, we will need more social spending.
MRT lines was a tough fight from the start because MM LKY did not believe it could be sustainable with a declining population.
The MRT was built to provide a faster mode of transportation to the people. It is also build to show that SG is capable enough to have reliable transport infrastructure. Population count have nothing to do with it.
By the late 90s, we could easily maintain a population of 6 million, with enough money for social spending.
Proofs?
Unfortunately, or fortunately, our previous generation astounded him with their drive and zeal.
Sorry to disappoint you but i think they get their most of their motivation from trying to get out of the poverty cycle and give their family and children a better life rather than from someone who cried on national television.
HK that had no future
I think its you who are the one with no future.
Your comment sure spooks me
-
There is going to b a show on CNA on foreigners in Spore tmrw.
-
This is music and good news to lee hsien loong this is what he is looking for. Figure has yet to reach 5.5 million as desired by loong, room for improvement.
-
Mothers want more flexible working conditions
By Margaret Perry, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 05 August 2008 2037 hrsSINGAPORE: Earning money for the family is the main reason why mothers want to return to the workforce. But they said on average, their paycheck has to be at least S$1,200 a month to make it worth their while.
These are some of the findings from a survey of 1,000 mothers by the support network, Working Mothers Forum, in April.
The pool of respondents was made up of 560 working mothers and 440 stay-at-home mothers who intend to re-enter the workforce.
In the survey, 37 per cent of the respondents said their main reason for stopping work was because they did not want to leave their children in childcare centres or with maids.
71 per cent of the stay-at-home mums said they wanted to work to earn money for the family. But 63 per cent of them said they were unable to find jobs that offer family-friendly working hours.
The Working Mothers Forum, which commissioned the survey, said measuring workers' performance rather than the hours spent in the office is one solution.
Cheryl Liew, vice-chair of a panel of experts, Working Mothers Forum, said: "With that, we will be moving away from having the person physically in the office or in the workplace, to one where work can be done anywhere, and that basically would facilitate a mum to be able to be at home, looking after the kids and yet be able to fulfil her professional obligations."
Working from home is not an option for all industries, but flexible working hours can be. For example, hotels and the service industry usually operate around the clock so they need staff to work different shifts throughout the day, night, weekdays and weekends.
Some mothers have found their own solutions. One of them said: "I'm a music teacher and I teach at home, so teaching at home actually gives me some flexibility of time and I can monitor my kids' work."
Whether it is pay or flexible working conditions, most of the mothers surveyed said employers and the government are in the best position to help them attain work-life balance.
Getting the right work-life balance could help boost Singapore's flagging birth rate.
Dr Daniel Goh, chair of a panel of experts, Working Mothers Forum, said: "A quarter or more of the mothers said they will consider having more babies if they have a better solution to their work and family life balances, and I think that is encouraging and something that we hope to improve for them and enable them to have more babies."
Working mothers said the two main challenges they faced were exhaustion and lack of personal time.
- CNA/so -
Originally posted by Fantagf:
This is music and good news to lee hsien loong this is what he is looking for. Figure has yet to reach 5.5 million as desired by loong, room for improvement.
This is the latest article on the growth of foreign population.http://www.littlespeck.com/content/lifestyle/CTrendsLifestyle-080712.htm
-
why is the govt so quiet about this?
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
"At another posting, someone accused me being naive"
Absolutely true. If your only stable source of income comes from the seat you are seating on and someone tries to steal it, wouldn't you do something about it?
Btw our forefathers were also immigrants.
If you want to reply, I suggest you read in the context of what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.
-
Originally posted by crimsontactics:
More citizens means there is a critical mass of passengers to justify more better national transportation services.
LOL! Public transport will improve even if there is no critical mass of passengers. Their aim is to give quick and reliable transportation to the people.There is no concern for numbers. Having more passengers may pressure them into increasing the efficiency of the transport system in a shorter duration, but i think the numbers would most likely hinder our transport system and create an uncomfortable environment for all of us.
More citizens means we do not need to relay on questionable machines or mercenaries for defence.
Not really. Most Singaporean don't aim to have a military career. This can be seen by our small number of regulars despite aggressive advertising. There will be more NS folks, but i don't think that they could match up with the regulars when it comes to combat. Also, even if we hit a population of 6m, our military force, regular and NS, will still be quite small.
Only when we reach the critical stage of 6 million, then do we need to do a rethink on family policies,by assessing our passed on citizens rate.
You don't wait till a problem happens before taking action. Don't your school teach you that?
More citizens means we can expand our workforce into newer economic horizons.
More citizens also equates to more competition and manpower and this may result in a lower average pay for everyone, making our live more miserable.
More new citizens means our elderly, whom had sacrifice much in nation building, could be taken care of, without taxing the current citizens more.
And we will face a more serious aging problem when the "new citizen" become elders. And you can count on it that the money will come from our pockets.
Many in the govt circles had their doubts. PM Lee called for 'more babies'. This is the only way out that we can survive as a nation. With more citizens, we will have enough for social spending through creative taxation such as GST.
With more citizens, we will need more social spending.
MRT lines was a tough fight from the start because MM LKY did not believe it could be sustainable with a declining population.
The MRT was built to provide a faster mode of transportation to the people. It is also build to show that SG is capable enough to have reliable transport infrastructure. Population count have nothing to do with it.
By the late 90s, we could easily maintain a population of 6 million, with enough money for social spending.
Proofs?
Unfortunately, or fortunately, our previous generation astounded him with their drive and zeal.
Sorry to disappoint you but i think they get their most of their motivation from trying to get out of the poverty cycle and give their family and children a better life rather than from someone who cried on national television.
HK that had no future
I think its you who are the one with no future.
Your comment sure spooks me
I understand what you are saying in your reply.
The summary of your post, the crux of the matter, the point of your contention is simply boiled to your personal greviance of 'social spending', or the lack of understanding on it, of which i accept blame for not being clearer, as i presume you are a matured thinking adult.
Theoratically, govts have no money. They can be the best people and formulate the best plans, but without money, they are nothing, and unable to lead. Thus, they need money - to build parliament buildings, offices, hire people for the civil service - administrators, teachers, social workers, doctors, army personnel, etc - people whom are crucial for nationhood.
In theory, much of these costs can be offset if the country has natural resources, such as oil or minerals. Australia can jolly well afford to pay the beaurocracy with through such resources, without even taxing its citizens. They have a few billion dollars just from royalties and mining concessions alone.
But we in Singapore have no such natural resources. We need to pay for our govt in order that it can run social spending, and save enough with investments for the next generation, such as upkeep of parks, build better schools, provide better transportation services, improve our infrastructure to facillitate business, etc,
Unlike Hong Kong, a province of China, where it would be stupid to save for 'future generations', for each dollar saved would go to the national treasury of China, for China to dole out accordingly. Hong Kong don't even need to pay for a standing army - its military and defenses needs are met by China. HK run surpluses each year, and can jollywell afford better social spending than us.
Thus, we have only ourselves to contribute. It was through our previous generation's sweat and toil that made Spore great - schools, buses, roads, buildings, homes, etc. We alone can never hope to have such facillities. Such monies come from our taxes - small little contributions that when combined, prudently spent, created an economic miracle called Singapore. Our previous generations cared enough for each other and the next to come.
However, the current generation may not be caring enough. We had been cold and calculative, and forgotten the sacrifices of toil and sweat of the previous generation. We have a declining birth rate, pampered womenfolk who make demands on taxpayers, and selfish perhaps ignorant kids blustering for better transportation services. All such insistance and solutions will only come from money of us singaporean tax payers.
There can be more buses at peak hours. But what happens at non-peak hours? Public Buses and transport organisations have fix costs, whether they run or don't run, and need to pay off their employees. So to provide more buses or trains at peak periods, there will more mouths to feed even during non-peak hours, and such monies comes from us citizens. Is it justifiable, or white elephants, a waste of our hardearned money?
As much as some hate MM LKY, he didn't want to have more citizens in the past, for he feels that we may end up being taxed more for social spending, on white elephants. But we had shown ourselves resourceful, and could earn money to support each other. PM Lee is one of those who believe we can achieve a better first world infrastructure, without us paying more taxes, but having more citizens, PRs and FTs, so that we singaporeans can have a better and comfortable future for ourselves and our future, so long as we are hardworking.
I don't mind paying more, with the little i have and earn. But if we have more citizens, it would help defray such costs. With just a few us, we will only end up having to pay more, espacially for our elderly for we cannot as a society leave them to die by the roadside, as they sacrificed much for us in our past. It is not just our minister salaries we pay more, which is only a small fraction of what we taxpayers have to pay for a 300,000 strong civil service.
Comfort and whines/complains comes at a price. No matter which political party we vote in - PAP, WP, SDA, SFP, SDP, etc. We taxpayers will have to still pay.
-
Lee is one of those who believe we can achieve a better first world infrastructure, without us paying more taxes, but having more citizens, PRs and FTs, so that we singaporeans can have a better and comfortable future for ourselves and our future, so long as we are hardworking.
How?
What is the logic?