PAP's population policy is wrong!
-
Disclaimer: This thread is personal opinion for open and democratic discussion without intend to discredit or defame anyone or any organisation.
Dear All,
The PAP's population policy is a policy to consolidate its power. It is wrong and unfair to SIngaporeans who had worked so hard for this nation. We are now in a thread-mill. When will this end? It will end with our population reduced to 2 million and we should stop the increase and ban migration here!
Between 1997- today, our population has grown from 3 m to 4.2 m.
Look at the traffic jams and overcrowding, you know that our infrastructure is not ready for this growth.
Therefore the calling to have more babies is ridiculous and is an irresponsible act of the PAP. We don't need to increase the population further! We need more space and resources to run this country!
You have increased the popluation by more than a million (by migration and import of foreign talent) just to ensure that PAP is in power.
If the PAP's claim is right with regards to our reserves, if we reduce our population by 2 million, we would have enough to feed everyone through financial funding and proper education to become professionals to service the regional growth.
So instead of increasing population to add up the pressure, we should reduce the population to ensure that SIngaporeans have a better life. The regional economics will be China's and having more people in Singapore will only create more burden to our coffer and to the Singaporeans now. Look at the job losses and recession we were since 1997.
By reducing the population, we will ensure a better life style- better homes, jobs and cars for everyone. Our decendents will be highly educated to handle the reserves to make productive use of it and be professionals for the region and China.
Therefore the PAP's increase of population is irresponsible and selfish! It is utterly unfair to the original SIngaporeans who now wants to enjoy the fruits of our labour!!!! -
i agree that the human population ought to be halved. at least.
-
An OSCAR Award for originality in Thinking. -
u do not agree?Originally posted by Atobe:An OSCAR Award for originality in Thinking. -
Refreshing angle that shows creative 'out-of-the-box' thinking.
This approach has quite a few implications when developed further, but meanwhile Relevation certainly deserve an OSCAR for originality in thought. -
It is indeed a refreshing angle, but as Atobe says, it does have implications, such as the inverted pyramid effect on Singapore's CPF system Atobe himself has mentioned, not to mention that I would think for an entire generation at least, a small number of young would have to support the old, till they eventually pass on.
-
Thank you for the applause.Originally posted by Atobe:Refreshing angle that shows creative 'out-of-the-box' thinking.
This approach has quite a few implications when developed further, but meanwhile Relevation certainly deserve an OSCAR for originality in thought.
Indeed I strongly feel that we should reduce population and yes I have though through the implications where the young may have to look after the old and probably strain the tax payers then.
The solution is to implement insurance policies that will ensure that those prior to retirement are covered for their own age.
Therefore the future generation will not have to pay for the old follks. In any case the current active working generation are between age of 25- 45 are better off and can surely affort these insurance scheme. I guess Mr Kua (the new Health Minister) probably has thought of this given that he proposed some sort of health insurance .
As such- this clears the concern of old age burdening the young in the future if our population is strunk to 2Million.
Also in terms of technology in 20 years time, we will be mostly in services and capital intensive industries. As to defending ourselves- we already have remote weaponry eg robots, remote air crafts and even remote controlled tanks to protect us. We do not need more man on the ground. We are a defensive force and unless we want to change to offensive, population reducing to 2 million is ideal. Therefore it makes no sense to have a large population.
So we need to reduce population now instead of increasing and straining ourselves as a result of it.
In fact this will also encourage original Singaporeans to stay back and forget about migrating.
We want our fruits of our labour. PAP- please get it done! Its an order! -
i agree actually.. been saying the same thing...
they talk about "an aging population"...
so, in the future, it's the same thing when this load of people grow old.. back to square 1?
only, this time, with heck of a lot more people?
are we just selling the future to buy the present? -
That is indeed something that stuns me too... Frankly that thought never come to my mind before. I got some questions to ask though.
How are we going to reduce the population ? Instead of asking people to give birth we are asking them to stop it now ? That sounds equally bad too...
second, how are we going to support the old people. You can say they have a lot of insurance, and they foot this insurance bills when they are young. But then that amount is going to be a bit substantial... I gauge may need at least $50,000 before they retire. Can everyone afford that insurance scheme now ? I believe that a lot of people now actually hope to depend on their children when they retire...
What is the effect of a shrinking economy ? Surely since people are lesser, the companies will be forced to move out too. Even if some companies stay, they still need to recruit low end people like cleaners and production workers. But then our high end people are getting more and more lousy since the selection is lesser. In the end will the average income of singaporean actually rises ? You may say more singaporean become professional but I think that may not be true. When educating the young are we really depriving them of funds ? Using reserves cannot last us for long. it will run out if we spend more than we saves. Actually the amount in our reserves aren't that spectacular... close to 90 billions but microsoft in US is already worth 200 billions.
Overall lesser companies and lesser people equal lesser Gov revenue. Gov spending is still almost the same. Can they afford to buy expensive robots and unmanned fighters to defend the country ? In the end only land costs seems to be reduced. We may have no need for COE but then Gov still need the money
-
traffic jams annoy me.
-
This is interesting and in response to the questions raised with a smaller population- all good news:
How are we going to reduce the population ? Instead of asking people to give birth we are asking them to stop it now ? That sounds equally bad too...
I guess it is not to stop the population from producing itself if they want to. Neither encourage nor discourage- that will allow the population reduce gradually. This will be the best as we will allow pure economics (so call the invisible hand) to work itself out. Alternatively which is not encouraging is to limit childbirth to 1 for each couple.
second, how are we going to support the old people. You can say they have a lot of insurance, and they foot this insurance bills when they are young. But then that amount is going to be a bit substantial... I gauge may need at least $50,000 before they retire. Can everyone afford that insurance scheme now ? I believe that a lot of people now actually hope to depend on their children when they retire...
Insurance will surely help. It is dependent upon the number of people as well as the risk involved. Given the current high number population between the age of 28-45 years old- the insurance amount is actually quite affordable since the risk is also low given the large numbers in this age group.
I don't agree that we should encourage dependency on our youngs just as our parents had expected us to do so. Don't you feel that we were held back. Asian having subscribed to confucianism have actually held themselves back for the last 150 years. One of the factors is that we have to look after our parents in old age and that discourages the young to be more courageous and adventurous. For example- being terms as unfilial if he/ she leaves their parents here and venture overseas etc. Besides we have a much smaller household- the cost of maintaining the old is very expensive. It hard to argue against this being a participant in this myself. I would not want this to happen to my kids for me and my wife
What is the effect of a shrinking economy ? Surely since people are lesser, the companies will be forced to move out too. Even if some companies stay, they still need to recruit low end people like cleaners and production workers.
Well the foreign workers is already a phenomenon and a permanent status quo. That will remain the same. There is a difference between being a worker/investor here and being a immigrant sharing or enjoying our forefather's labour.
But then our high end people are getting more and more lousy since the selection is lesser.
Disagree. Today we have poured in more money and funds to our youngs much more than 10-20 years ago. This group of professionals will surely rise in size. They are not to serve the local economy but the region.
In the end will the average income of singaporean actually rises ?
Being professionals- their income will rise. Professionals as doctors, lawyers, engineers, sales and marketing, businessmen, insurance etc. This will effectively make Singapore the HQ for the region.
You may say more singaporean become professional but I think that may not be true. When educating the young are we really depriving them of funds ?
That's why it is important to start reducing the population now, so that whatever resources we have now- be it monetary or manpower- we educate our current young for the future.
Given our current high income among the 25-45 age groups, we would be able to be self sufficient in income terms without having to add to the young's burden when aging population sets in (due to the insurance bought). That's why it is crucial not to increase the population either via "foreign talent" or higher birth rates.
In fact the PAP is leading us to much worse situation by increasing the population. How are we so sure that PAP is able to produce jobs. I am not optimistic given their failure to do so since 1997. The rise of China and India are further prove of this trend in reducing empolyment here. It is only by reducing the population with a higher number of professionals and Singaporean entrepreneurs that we can ensure our value in this region.
Using reserves cannot last us for long. it will run out if we spend more than we saves. Actually the amount in our reserves aren't that spectacular... close to 90 billions but microsoft in US is already worth 200 billions.
This is hard to argue against, given that we also not sure how much the PAP has failed us - I agree. That's why we should not be spending too much by having higher birth rates but rather prepare with whatever funds we have to better educate our youngs and our old age.
Overall lesser companies and lesser people equal lesser Gov revenue.
Not necessary, as over time our better youngs who became the regional professionals will be able to bring back the bread and bigger pie for everyone. Opportunities will be abound and lesser governemnt involvement is required. The governement will spend less given that the population is self-funding and privatisation will have a much larger role to play. The government's role is only to ensure that the superstructure of the bureaucracy is retained for the normal operation of the private sector. So in the end will be More SIngaporean companies, lesser people, lots of opportunities, Singaporeans being the real owners of Singapore, lots of private revenue and much less dependent on the government and for course and less dominant PAP or whatever government.
Gov spending is still almost the same.
The spending will be lessen since privatisatiion sets in. More funds can be channelled to strategic items such as robotics. Besides with private companies being involved, these funding is taken care of. In the US, Rockheed Martin, Raython and many others has involvement in these expenditure.
Can they afford to buy expensive robots and unmanned fighters to defend the country ?
Yes- we can afford if we start now
In the end only land costs seems to be reduced. We may have no need for COE but then Gov still need the money :
Well if everything becomes affordable and privatisation sets in, the government's role is reduced, why would they need more money? Now is very bad.
Our current government wants privatisation and revenue as well- no logic since they have spend less but still wants more money- you know why? Because we have grown the population by 25% too fast too soon. That's why we are now facing unemployment and lack of funds.
So lets start reducing the population and do the reverse- we will have a better life in the future.
-
This is interesting and in response to the questions raised with a smaller population- all good news:
How are we going to reduce the population ? Instead of asking people to give birth we are asking them to stop it now ? That sounds equally bad too...
I guess it is not to stop the population from producing itself if they want to. Neither encourage nor discourage- that will allow the population reduce gradually. This will be the best as we will allow pure economics (so call the invisible hand) to work itself out. Alternatively which is not encouraging is to limit childbirth to 1 for each couple.
second, how are we going to support the old people. You can say they have a lot of insurance, and they foot this insurance bills when they are young. But then that amount is going to be a bit substantial... I gauge may need at least $50,000 before they retire. Can everyone afford that insurance scheme now ? I believe that a lot of people now actually hope to depend on their children when they retire...
Insurance will surely help. It is dependent upon the number of people as well as the risk involved. Given the current high number population between the age of 28-45 years old- the insurance amount is actually quite affordable since the risk is also low given the large numbers in this age group.
I don't agree that we should encourage dependency on our youngs just as our parents had expected us to do so. Don't you feel that we were held back. Asian having subscribed to confucianism have actually held themselves back for the last 150 years. One of the factors is that we have to look after our parents in old age and that discourages the young to be more courageous and adventurous. For example- being terms as unfilial if he/ she leaves their parents here and venture overseas etc. Besides we have a much smaller household- the cost of maintaining the old is very expensive. It hard to argue against this being a participant in this myself. I would not want this to happen to my kids for me and my wife
What is the effect of a shrinking economy ? Surely since people are lesser, the companies will be forced to move out too. Even if some companies stay, they still need to recruit low end people like cleaners and production workers.
Well the foreign workers is already a phenomenon and a permanent status quo. That will remain the same. There is a difference between being a worker/investor here and being a immigrant sharing or enjoying our forefather's labour.
But then our high end people are getting more and more lousy since the selection is lesser.
Disagree. Today we have poured in more money and funds to our youngs much more than 10-20 years ago. This group of professionals will surely rise in size. They are not to serve the local economy but the region.
In the end will the average income of singaporean actually rises ?
Being professionals- their income will rise. Professionals as doctors, lawyers, engineers, sales and marketing, businessmen, insurance etc. This will effectively make Singapore the HQ for the region.
You may say more singaporean become professional but I think that may not be true. When educating the young are we really depriving them of funds ?
That's why it is important to start reducing the population now, so that whatever resources we have now- be it monetary or manpower- we educate our current young for the future.
Given our current high income among the 25-45 age groups, we would be able to be self sufficient in income terms without having to add to the young's burden when aging population sets in (due to the insurance bought). That's why it is crucial not to increase the population either via "foreign talent" or higher birth rates.
In fact the PAP is leading us to much worse situation by increasing the population. How are we so sure that PAP is able to produce jobs. I am not optimistic given their failure to do so since 1997. The rise of China and India are further prove of this trend in reducing empolyment here. It is only by reducing the population with a higher number of professionals and Singaporean entrepreneurs that we can ensure our value in this region.
Using reserves cannot last us for long. it will run out if we spend more than we saves. Actually the amount in our reserves aren't that spectacular... close to 90 billions but microsoft in US is already worth 200 billions.
This is hard to argue against, given that we also not sure how much the PAP has failed us - I agree. That's why we should not be spending too much by having higher birth rates but rather prepare with whatever funds we have to better educate our youngs and our old age.
Overall lesser companies and lesser people equal lesser Gov revenue.
Not necessary, as over time our better youngs who became the regional professionals will be able to bring back the bread and bigger pie for everyone. Opportunities will be abound and lesser governemnt involvement is required. The governement will spend less given that the population is self-funding and privatisation will have a much larger role to play. The government's role is only to ensure that the superstructure of the bureaucracy is retained for the normal operation of the private sector. So in the end will be More SIngaporean companies, lesser people, lots of opportunities, Singaporeans being the real owners of Singapore, lots of private revenue and much less dependent on the government and for course and less dominant PAP or whatever government.
Gov spending is still almost the same.
The spending will be lessen since privatisatiion sets in. More funds can be channelled to strategic items such as robotics. Besides with private companies being involved, these funding is taken care of. In the US, Rockheed Martin, Raython and many others has involvement in these expenditure.
Can they afford to buy expensive robots and unmanned fighters to defend the country ?
Yes- we can afford if we start now
In the end only land costs seems to be reduced. We may have no need for COE but then Gov still need the money :
Well if everything becomes affordable and privatisation sets in, the government's role is reduced, why would they need more money? Now is very bad.
Our current government wants privatisation and revenue as well- no logic since they have spend less but still wants more money- you know why? Because we have grown the population by 25% too fast too soon. That's why we are now facing unemployment and lack of funds.
So lets start reducing the population and do the reverse- we will have a better life in the future. -
I guess it is not to stop the population from producing itself if they want to. Neither encourage nor discourage- that will allow the population reduce gradually. This will be the best as we will allow pure economics (so call the invisible hand) to work itself out. Alternatively which is not encouraging is to limit childbirth to 1 for each couple.
If we leave the population as it is, it is going to decrease very gradually... I say it may takes another 100 years before we can ever reach 2 million. Another problem that may surface is some races will give birth more than other races. At that time the population mix will change and there will be more problems that surfaced. If we forced people to have only a single child, there will be a very severe blow to human rights here... I don't think majority will support this notion...Insurance will surely help. It is dependent upon the number of people as well as the risk involved. Given the current high number population between the age of 28-45 years old- the insurance amount is actually quite affordable since the risk is also low given the large numbers in this age group.
But then insurance does not come cheap... These companies are also earning money from sales of insurance. I believe that a lot of people cannot afford it tentatively... I mean look at the cleaner or kopi shop worker... I don't think they can have the money to buy insurance but have to depend on social help when they get old...
I don't agree that we should encourage dependency on our youngs just as our parents had expected us to do so. Don't you feel that we were held back. Asian having subscribed to confucianism have actually held themselves back for the last 150 years. One of the factors is that we have to look after our parents in old age and that discourages the young to be more courageous and adventurous. For example- being terms as unfilial if he/ she leaves their parents here and venture overseas etc. Besides we have a much smaller household- the cost of maintaining the old is very expensive. It hard to argue against this being a participant in this myself. I would not want this to happen to my kids for me and my wife
About young supporting old. I support you to a vary degree but there are a lot of people who don't... Actually it is their own business whether the young should support the old... We cannot force them in this instance again...Well the foreign workers is already a phenomenon and a permanent status quo. That will remain the same. There is a difference between being a worker/investor here and being a immigrant sharing or enjoying our forefather's labour.
About foreign workers I agree with you. However it is worth noting that low end industry also employs a lot of singaporean too. I don't think any country has ever succeed in making ALL the citizens became professionals. In society naturally some will be content to work as construction worker or operation worker. In natural some people will turn out to be criminals and will have to find job that used more labour... Even professionals will commit crime and there will surely be people working the "unprofessional" career
Actually now a lot of youngster do receive a lot of funds. However they also became more "un-streetsmart" and more spoilt. The size of professional may rise, but it will not be total. Meaning there will always be people that fail to become professionals.
Disagree. Today we have poured in more money and funds to our youngs much more than 10-20 years ago. This group of professionals will surely rise in size. They are not to serve the local economy but the region.Being professionals- their income will rise. Professionals as doctors, lawyers, engineers, sales and marketing, businessmen, insurance etc. This will effectively make Singapore the HQ for the region
Hmm... but then if we compare with other countries the number of professionals may not be higher. The proportion is higher but the total number is not. This also effectively raises the overall salaries of the singapore since people are more choosy about their future career. Overall the number decline but the salary increases. Whether that will make singapore the HQ may not be true.Given our current high income among the 25-45 age groups, we would be able to be self sufficient in income terms without having to add to the young's burden when aging population sets in (due to the insurance bought). That's why it is crucial not to increase the population either via "foreign talent" or higher birth rates.
Well... I still think this is a problem..
In fact the PAP is leading us to much worse situation by increasing the population. How are we so sure that PAP is able to produce jobs. I am not optimistic given their failure to do so since 1997. The rise of China and India are further prove of this trend in reducing empolyment here. It is only by reducing the population with a higher number of professionals and Singaporean entrepreneurs that we can ensure our value in this region.This is hard to argue against, given that we also not sure how much the PAP has failed us - I agree. That's why we should not be spending too much by having higher birth rates but rather prepare with whatever funds we have to better educate our youngs and our old age
hmm.... actually I always thought we had spend a lot on educating our youngs... except for having a smaller class size how else do we spend the funds to develop them fully ?Not necessary, as over time our better youngs who became the regional professionals will be able to bring back the bread and bigger pie for everyone. Opportunities will be abound and lesser governemnt involvement is required. The governement will spend less given that the population is self-funding and privatisation will have a much larger role to play. The government's role is only to ensure that the superstructure of the bureaucracy is retained for the normal operation of the private sector. So in the end will be More SIngaporean companies, lesser people, lots of opportunities, Singaporeans being the real owners of Singapore, lots of private revenue and much less dependent on the government and for course and less dominant PAP or whatever government
I am not very sure why opportunities will be abound... I mean do you think when singapore has decrease its labour more foreign companies will invest in here ? And do you think with a decreasing population the retail business will improves ? I guess naturally about 30% of the shops may close down due to the lack of people here...The spending will be lessen since privatisatiion sets in. More funds can be channelled to strategic items such as robotics. Besides with private companies being involved, these funding is taken care of. In the US, Rockheed Martin, Raython and many others has involvement in these expenditure.
Privatisation may actually means a reduction to Gov revenue
I always though Gov is earning money from some sectors etc...Yes- we can afford if we start now
... it is still largely optimistic...Well if everything becomes affordable and privatisation sets in, the government's role is reduced, why would they need more money? Now is very bad.
it is largely optimistic... I don't think robots are efficient to be deployed as soldiers yet... maybe 2o years later but not now... Privatisation may reduce the income of Gov. If not, it may means the standard of living has increase too. Talking about standard of living, it will definitely increase when population decreases... generally income become more, than everything that we buy will also increase in price. Life may not get better if cars or housing decreases but food and other expenditure increases...
Our current government wants privatisation and revenue as well- no logic since they have spend less but still wants more money- you know why? Because we have grown the population by 25% too fast too soon. That's why we are now facing unemployment and lack of funds. -
Adopt a one-child policy like china. That might help...Originally posted by socrates:How are we going to reduce the population ?
This reduction idea intrigues me though...indeed revolutionary if considered. -
jus nw news say many taiwan ppl migrating to sg...sure increase population...
sure no jobs in sg -
coz of the polls?Originally posted by Ah Ma:jus nw news say many taiwan ppl migrating to sg...sure increase population... sure no jobs in sg
