Originally posted by reyes:PAP probably micro management ageing issue instead of Macro factors.
understand why couples are not having babies.
eg. govt increase subsidies to childcare, but childcare center increase fees.
It is not a matter of money, but we gals just dun like the pain of delivery babies while our male counterparts can enjoy themselve without pain.
Originally posted by reyes:PAP probably micro management ageing issue instead of Macro factors.
understand why couples are not having babies.
eg. govt increase subsidies to childcare, but childcare center increase fees.
I don't see how this problem is even solvable on the macro scale.
Birth rates to my knowledge has always ran inversely proportional to the educational level of women.
What angel said is right, there's no direct economical advantage to having a kid in an urban setting it can even be viewed as a burden. Plus, men get all the fun in the baby making process while the women are left to deal with the hormone inbalance, nausea and labour pain.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:I don't see how this problem is even solvable on the macro scale.
Birth rates to my knowledge has always ran inversely proportional to the educational level of women.
What angel said is right, there's no direct economical advantage to having a kid in an urban setting it can even be viewed as a burden. Plus, men get all the fun in the baby making process while the women are left to deal with the hormone inbalance, nausea and labour pain.
wha, first time, someone agreed with me, wow!!! hug hug you.
anyway, the education level had make us stronger and independent, we dun need to depend on our male counterpart to make a living, in fact, some of us are much more better than them. Tho we may drive with constant braking, we gals are less skeptical to corruption, more loyal, less drinking and entertaining, more focus and objectives.
Even in relationship, we seek control over our male counterpart otherwise dun expect us to be like our grannies who kowtow to grandpas and give birth like a pig.
Originally posted by angel7030:wha, first time, someone agreed with me, wow!!! hug hug you.
anyway, the education level had make us stronger and independent, we dun need to depend on our male counterpart to make a living, in fact, some of us are much more better than them. Tho we may drive with constant braking, we gals are less skeptical to corruption, more loyal, less drinking and entertaining, more focus and objectives.
Even in relationship, we seek control over our male counterpart otherwise dun expect us to be like our grannies who kowtow to grandpas and give birth like a pig.
While i can agree that women should no longer be servitude to men like the in the past,
i disagree that women would be naturally better in the traits you have pointed out. Both genders have their fair share of idiots and fools. Men and women were supposed to compliment each other, not seek dominance.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:While i can agree that women should no longer be servitude to men like the in the past,
i disagree that women would be naturally better in the traits you have pointed out. Both genders have their fair share of idiots and fools. Men and women were supposed to compliment each other, not seek dominance.
it is not that i want to seek dominance as you pointed, but the way our male gender act need a female strong support and control behind to him successful. Otherwise, most may go the wrong way.
Even in relationship, we seek control over our male counterpart
That will create more conflicts and divorces.
Originally posted by angel7030:
it is not that i want to seek dominance as you pointed, but the way our male gender act need a female strong support and control behind to him successful. Otherwise, most may go the wrong way.
I don't disagree with your opinion, but i'm sure you can agree there are black sheeps amongst females that would abuse that sort of reasoning.
Just like there are men who would resent control of any kind, even when it's non existent.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Which farking sultan would you like to be under?
I think that is disrespect to malays.
Penang, Malacca are all states in Malaysian federation.
They don't have sultans.
I simply disagree that Singapore is going to join back the same old stupid Malaya federation. If I remember correctly, the Sultan of Johore has a priori claims to Singapore as well as a few other sultans. I am not being disrespectful but going back to Malaysia is a political suicide to Singaporeans as we will become second class citizens in the federation of Malaysia. Nothing more, nothing less.
yeh first they ask us stop at 2. Now they realised big mistake and they import the foreigners. How will historians look back and write?
I am not being disrespectful but going back to Malaysia is a political suicide to Singaporeans as we will become second class citizens in the federation of Malaysia. Nothing more, nothing less.
If there is some sort of political agreement on rights, i don't think it will be suicide.
Now the island is flooded with foreigners also.
I think that is suicide.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:Even in relationship, we seek control over our male counterpart
That will create more conflicts and divorces.
that just the way it is, u want to blame the govt for getting us educated and smarter
Originally posted by Ah Chia:I am not being disrespectful but going back to Malaysia is a political suicide to Singaporeans as we will become second class citizens in the federation of Malaysia. Nothing more, nothing less.
If there is some sort of political agreement on rights, i don't think it will be suicide.
Now the island is flooded with foreigners also.
I think that is suicide.
If you mentioned that the island is flooded by unskilled immigrants and it is thus suicidal for Singapore, I would agree.
However, if Singapore is flooded by skilled immigrants, then I would heartily disagree.
u want to blame the govt for getting us educated and smarter
I think it is more of a personal choice.
If you mentioned that the island is flooded by unskilled immigrants
That is the current policy of PAP regime.
If general conditions in Singapore is better, I am sure singaporeans can sustain the replacement rate.
A report released this month by the Department of Statistics showed 39,935 babies were born in 2008, well short of the 60,000 births the country needs each year.
This is a very big problem. It is either Singaporean produce more babies, or else, has to depend on immigrants to fill up the 60% shortage in human population.
Originally posted by Rock^Star:yeh first they ask us stop at 2. Now they realised big mistake and they import the foreigners. How will historians look back and write?
If they didn't have that stop at 2 thing, how will your this generation 'support' those above?
besides, which country is perfect? Do you study history?
Originally posted by mistyblue:If general conditions in Singapore is better, I am sure singaporeans can sustain the replacement rate.
strangely, the better the 'general' conditions of a country, the lower the birth rate seems to be. look at the countries with high birth rates. the 'general conditions' of those countries are really fantastic...???????
Originally posted by Ah Chia:If you mentioned that the island is flooded by unskilled immigrants
That is the current policy of PAP regime.
Oei, you want to kao peh about the current government, do so directly.
If you want to motherfuck about about skilled labour, then you better hope that you are descended from a bumiputra.
Originally posted by Ah Chia:If you mentioned that the island is flooded by unskilled immigrants
That is the current policy of PAP regime.
Less than 3 in 10 jobs went to citizens: no real figures on citizens given by MOM
Quote by MM
Mr Lee said: "We are caught in a bind — we’ve got to decide this is our country, our society and we must remain the majority. Yes, we will take immigrants; yes, we will take talented people, but we must be the majority.
"Otherwise, they will change us if they are the majority. So I think 25 years from now, Singapore will be more cosmopolitan because we’ve got many people from China, India, Malaysia and from the region. We have European children doing National Service"
"I’ve got economists saying you’ve got to change your system. Wall Street Journal has said, ’Oh, this won’t work, consume yourself’. Four million people to consume and keep an industry that supplies the world with top—end goods — it’s rubbish," he said
UNQUOTE
So are we getting unskilled immigrants??
well short of the 60,000 births the country needs each year.
Why Singapore needs 60,000 babies each year?
Mr Lee said: "We are caught in a bind — we’ve got to decide this is our country, our society and we must remain the majority. Yes, we will take immigrants; yes, we will take talented people, but we must be the majority.
"Otherwise, they will change us if they are the majority. So I think 25 years from now, Singapore will be more cosmopolitan because we’ve got many people from China, India, Malaysia and from the region. We have European children doing National Service"
"I’ve got economists saying you’ve got to change your system. Wall Street Journal has said, ’Oh, this won’t work, consume yourself’. Four million people to consume and keep an industry that supplies the world with top—end goods — it’s rubbish," he said
I find it hard to believe in things Lee Kuan Yew says.
He talks so much rubbish.
Can you quote from non Lee Kuan Yew sources?
Originally posted by Ah Chia:well short of the 60,000 births the country needs each year.
Why Singapore needs 60,000 babies each year?
to serve the country lah...do u know the intake of male NSmen today is only 1/3 of the 70's and 80's, last time yearly is abt 90,000 boys, today less than 30,000 thousand.
Originally posted by udontknowme:
strangely, the better the 'general' conditions of a country, the lower the birth rate seems to be. look at the countries with high birth rates. the 'general conditions' of those countries are really fantastic...???????
That has always been the trend, yet people still insists that it's the government's fault.
Even without the stop at 2 policy, all we get is a bigger population than now. The birth replacement rate would still be at the same dismal rate.
The end result would be worse without the policy in fact.Considering then we would have a much bigger aging baby boomer population, with future generations having to fork out more to support them.