Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

Quote:Old people >> young people if we stop the immigration.. Is that what you are looking forward?

My views to the real reason why they bring in FT is to do with the cpf.

Some of the old timers tell me back in the old days this was what the government wanted. Small population. Turn 55 your cpf will return to you in full and no questions asked. For families 2 is enough signboards everywhere tv keep broadcasting the message non-stop. This is what they wanted and today we get the result of the action they did back then so you cannot say government has no control. This is not a mistake the government purposely wanted it that way.

But then somewhere along the line something happened and they changed the system.

yeokiwi Wrote:Another way to solve the problem is to boost the fertility rate which is not necessary controllable by gov.

From the various news reports put out by the government, barriers to having more children include:

cost of raising children (childcare, education)
cost of housing (forced dual income, less time/money for kids)
cost of transport (cars)

The government can bring down the cost of childcare if it wishes - by building more childcare centres (which it is doing), by training more childcare workers (I do not know if this is being done) and by making leases affordable (true for PCF, not sure about the others). It can even exempt childcare businesses from tax if it wishes.

The government can bring down the cost of education if it wishes - e.g. by increasing the education subsidies (thus reducing fees) or increasing the number of bursaries (to help poor students).

The government can bring down the cost of housing if it wishes - by having HDB sell flats at cost, selling land to HDB at a nominal price, increasing the supply of flats (this IS being done) etc.

The government can bring down the cost of transport if it wishes. After all ERP and COE are government creations. And likewise the government can nationalize the public transport operators if it wishes. Then it can set low fares and yet deliver a high standard of service (perhaps at the cost of losing money).

So far we have not seen any radical measures to drastically bring down the cost of living. There have been numerous financial handouts along the way, but they do not even begin to address the fundamental issue of runaway costs. The increased baby bonus is small potatoes when sending your child to non-PCF childcare can cost $1,000 per month (even the Straits Times acknowledged that in childcare you get what you pay for). The housing grants are also a token gesture when the cost of a flat has doubled in the last 5 years.

Fundamentally, what all this means is that the government is not interested ENOUGH to raise the birthrate. Immigration is viewed as preferable - hence the growth in immigrant population.

Never forget how powerful the government is. Singapore may be a small country, but within it the government is all-powerful. When it gives excuses for why something cannot be done, it is simply saying that it does not want to do it badly enough.

(29-01-2013, 03:27 PM)Musicwhiz Wrote:

(29-01-2013, 03:21 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: Is anyone here in favour of a dropping population? Why?

I am in favour of a population size which does not strain our transport infrastructure and cause our housing prices to keep rising.

i am in favour of a government that builds up the housing and transportation capacity enough first and have provision of worse-case scenarios should calamity strikes Singapore, before even considering increasing the population at a much more moderate rate. Why 1-2%? why not 0.5%? Was there even a national review whereby the topics are debated in parliament? Or was it shafted down our throats as usual?

Are we so desperate of highly skilled financial executives that the unbeatable SMU graduates cannot fulfilled? Or super innovating scientists and researchers that NUS/NTU world class universities cannot produce?
That would be strange isn't it?

Our national policy of housing and transport for past decade is one of fire-fighting, ie. not enough housing/ transportation and now rushing to solve the issues.
Let's not even dwell onto the jobs competition.

This is not a 20/20 foresight by our bestest government can do.

(29-01-2013, 04:36 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: Never forget how powerful the government is. Singapore may be a small country, but within it the government is all-powerful. When it gives excuses for why something cannot be done, it is simply saying that it does not want to do it badly enough.

Thanks d.o.g.

On your points about the Govt not wanting to do something badly enough, I concur on this. I had the same discussion with some friends a while back on car costs and I felt it was simple - tighten the financing to 5 years and increase requirement for downpayment of at least 20-30%, while not allowing the COE to be financed. However, someone pointed out that this will reduce demand for cars and hence crimp Government revenues (from COEs), while the banks would also complain about less car loans being offered. So being pro-business, the Government decides instead to tweak COE supply, resulting in lower supplies and HIGHER COE prices, which goes into the Govt's coffers.

Another point I brought up which you also mentioned - doesn't the immigration ministry talk to the Transport Ministry, which in turn should co-ordinate with the Housing Ministry? If you bother letting so many people in, why didn't you anticipate the issues?

Can we true blue Singaporeans determine not to have 7m population ?

all in all, it's easier to import!

why wait 22 yrs for ur son to grow up and collect tax, when garhment can import tax-payers direct!

This is the happening right now!

I disagree with d.o.g that population growth is a simple problem. Observe around in developed world, including even China, and we can easily conclude: urbanisation is the best form of contraceptive.

It is not just a matter of cost, it is also a matter of lifestyle. We look at the immigration policy of Japan and US. Japanese are likely to extinct by the end of this century based on this trajectory while US is the only developed nation in the western world to have growing population.

The idea of 2 is enough is good. It helped in the growth in Singapore without excess burdens... lest we forget the challenges of 1965 is immense if we look back objectively. Compare China and India when the latter is likely to exceed China population end of this decade with the populace no better off. Problem with China is that the execution sucks (pun not intended). To terminate a life after it is conceived at 7 months or so is ridiculous. The problem with Singapore and now China is that they don't know when to loosen the policy. Like I said Urbanisation is the best contraceptive. Post 1972 Singapore population of babies had been steadily decreasing as people urbanised, the govt was too slow to reverse. The same thing is going to happen in China. Even if you take away all penalties, i doubt the china population growth will accelerate anymore, as chinese urbanisation ratio passed 50% for the first time in HISTORY.

The logic of promoting population increase in Singapore is not difficult: it is to increase GDP and spillover effect to GDP per capita. This is what Krugman refers to as growth by perspiration. Concept is simple: you add a person to the labour force, the GDP goes up, ceteris paribus, plus other spillovers. Same idea as getting women into the workforce.

It is much harder to improve efficiency and productivity per worker by say 10% than just increase numbers by 10%. Same logic why vices like casinos are an easy solution but may not be the right solution longer term.

I reiterate: Like Andy Grove says: Only the paranoid survives. 50 years ago, the jewel of British admin was Ceylon, the best managed police force was in Philippines, and the richest SEA country was Myanmar. It only takes one generation to screw things up. I'm wondering how many people understand this hard truth.

(29-01-2013, 04:36 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: From the various news reports put out by the government, barriers to having more children include:

(29-01-2013, 04:36 PM)d.o.g. Wrote: Never forget how powerful the government is. Singapore may be a small country, but within it the government is all-powerful. When it gives excuses for why something cannot be done, it is simply saying that it does not want to do it badly enough.

Even if the government can solve all these (transport, housing etc) and make Singapore a "rilek" nation, you might well find that the birth rate continues to stay low. Nobody knows of course, but I think this outcome is well within the realm of possibility. People may think that its better that they enjoy life themselves than have 3-4 kids.

The government, all-powerful when it comes to ruling the country, cannot force you to breed.

So, they may have come to that conclusion, and decided that while they will throw some money to try and solve the problem, a more guaranteed route to having a bigger population would be via immigration.

And that is the more interesting question. What is behind the minds of the PAP leaders? Why do they see the need to have 5/6/7/8/9 million people on this island? This is not something that the founding fathers have in mind. Somewhere along the line they have decided to embark on this route. Without understanding the underlying mindset (and changing it), this will be what the people will see coming out over the next decade (presuming that the PAP is still in power). Its not that they do not care, but they believe (whether rightly or wrongly) that this is the best thing they could do, given the circumstances, which they may or may not have given enough consideration to resolve!

The greater threat I see from immigration is not the congestion/high prices/overcrowding but the threat to the social fabric of the country which is now clearly fracturing between those who think they don't have enough against those who they perceive to take more than their fair share. Foreigners are just the side casualty of this which is playing out within the Singaporean population itself. You can see it from the rage, even within this forum.

(29-01-2013, 05:31 PM)specuvestor Wrote: Observe around in developed world, including even China, and we can easily conclude: urbanisation is the best form of contraceptive.

Can only agree 50%. The other 50% is due to the emancipation of the women folk, e.g. some Muslim countries where women do not enjoy the same freedom or rights continue to enjoy high birth rates.

Leveraging on human capital? Can see results faster, no need to start from ground zero, the wait is too long!

(29-01-2013, 05:16 PM)brattzz Wrote: all in all, it's easier to import!

why wait 22 yrs for ur son to grow up and collect tax, when garhment can import tax-payers direct!

This is the happening right now!