Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

(30-01-2013, 07:53 AM)KopiKat Wrote:

(30-01-2013, 07:33 AM)LionFlyer Wrote:

(30-01-2013, 07:05 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: In Singapore context, 10-20k per year to top up population is still inherently possible.

But is it just 10 - 20k per year to top up? If it's 10k per year, it is just another 100k in 10 years. We are looking at around 10x that number per year if we are to hit 6.9 million by 2030.

The Population comprises of Citizens, PRs & Non-Residents. You're confusing Population with new Citizens. The bulk of the growth in Population will be from Non-Residents ie. Foreign Workers / Talents... These are the ones who'll contribute the most to our infrastructure & Housing strain...

Thanks for the clarification. But the absolute growth rate in population is still around 90k per year (regardless of the composition of New SC, PR, NR) and we have to deal with that number of warm bodies on the MRT train/road/buses/property etc.

In a way, your reply also help to potentially answer safetyfirst's comments about how to deal with 7 mil aging population from 2030 onwards.

If the majority of the increase comes from the non-resident component, the assumption can be made that these people are a "floating" 2.4 million pool and will not sink their roots in SG for their retirement, and hence is constantly renewed with new, younger talents.

Our low birth rate is not phenomenon exclusive to Singapore. Even LKY has admitted before that in the countries (except in America) when women enter the workforce population rates will start going down. Almost all countries are facing this issue we are not the only ones growing old - so this is quite normal already.

Growing old is natural, dying is also natural all people will grow old and die even how great a leader will die look at steve jobs, but in time new ones will grow up to take the place.

A while back I read an article on ZeroHedge that says the Japanese government is running out of pension funds to tap from because of declining population and may have to borrow from lenders (Read loan-sharks) outside of Japan at international (Read usurious) rates.

We have almost identical problem with the Japanese of a declining population so it's understood universally that if the Japanese population were reproducing themselves then at regular intervals young people would graduate enter the workforce take over the places of older workers who would be retiring. There would be a steady outflow but also steady inflow of savings to pension funds and these funds could be tapped by government who can issue bonds for cheap money. Without sufficient funds in pension savings to tap they would have to go to the loan sharks.

So apply to us, is low population an excuse or misdirection?

(30-01-2013, 09:11 AM)sgd Wrote: Our low birth rate is not phenomenon exclusive to Singapore. Even LKY has admitted before that in the countries (except in America) when women enter the workforce population rates will start going down. Almost all countries are facing this issue we are not the only ones growing old - so this is quite normal already.

Growing old is natural, dying is also natural all people will grow old and die even how great a leader will die look at steve jobs, but in time new ones will grow up to take the place.

A while back I read an article on ZeroHedge that says the Japanese government is running out of pension funds to tap from because of declining population and may have to borrow from lenders (Read loan-sharks) outside of Japan at international (Read usurious) rates.

We have almost identical problem with the Japanese of a declining population so it understood universally that if the Japanese population were reproducing themselves then at regular intervals young people would graduate enter the workforce take over the places of older workers who would be retiring. There would be a steady outflow but also steady inflow of savings to pension funds and these funds could be tapped by government who can issue bonds for cheap money. Without sufficient funds in pension savings tap they would have to go to the loan sharks.

So apply to us, is low population an excuse or misdirection?

Declining population is still alright. But, in our case, it is both declining population with declining ratio of workers versus retirees.

Actually, the white paper is necessary for the citizens to make their own decisions of the future of Singapore and I respect the current gov from committing political suicide by releasing this white paper(maybe they are thinking of quitting????)
Or maybe they are just ignorant or arrogant.

This paper alone will easily cause them to lose another 10-20 seats in 2016.

Since this issue concerns all Singaporeans, I thought it will be more appropriate to call for a national referendum to decide on the population policy rather than pushing out the ruling party in the election and rush in another political party that is equally clueless.

(30-01-2013, 09:24 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: Since this issue concerns all Singaporeans, I thought it will be more appropriate to call for a national referendum to decide on the population policy rather than pushing out the ruling party in the election and rush in another political party that is equally clueless.

This is a good idea. A referendum is fair to everyone.

Another thing i notice is some of us keep saying that we should be worried about the falling ratio of the working population/ageing population. IMHO, i think this is a misconception. by right, majority of the ageing population should have sufficient CPF savings + personal savings (cash,bonds,stocks,endowment plans,2nd or more properties) over decades of working. I always think it is a personal responsibility for one's retirement, never rely on others, so when you are young and healthy, you should work hard and SAVE.

The government will only need to be worried for a minority of the ageing population, people who struggle hard for a living. but the government can always release more land. The plot of land RGS is currently standing should yield 1-2 billion for the government, this amount can easily support this minority group for a couple of years.

Open to hearing altenative views

Will be naive to think they care for us.

(30-01-2013, 09:36 AM)safetyfirst Wrote: Another thing i notice is some of us keep saying that we should be worried about the falling ratio of the working population/ageing population. IMHO, i think this is a misconception. by right, majority of the ageing population should have sufficient CPF savings + personal savings (cash,bonds,stocks,endowment plans,2nd or more properties) over decades of working. I always think it is a personal responsibility for one's retirement, never rely on others, so when you are young and healthy, you should work hard and SAVE.

I have a different take of the situation.

The working population generates goods and services for all of the population to consume (ignoring imports/exports for the moment). When the working population decreases but if the demand for goods and services remain the same or goes up, there can only be 1 impact. Price of goods and services will rise. A retired person might realise that his retirement funds are insufficient if the inflation in the price of goods and services rise beyond his expectations. In a general sense, I agree with the government's position.

However, I disagree with many of the government's assumptions.
a) First of all, the demand for goods and services at different age bands would differ significantly, if you compare a person at age 20, 40, 60 or 80.
b) Secondly, the government assumes that in 2030, there will be a lot of working population retiring. This is very different from the current (actual) situation whereby people are leaving the work force from 50-65 years old. In other words, they are underestimating the number of people leaving work force at the moment and overestimating the number people leaving the work force in 2030.
c) The non-resident population of 1.5million creates a significant quantum of goods and services as well. Therefore, I am very surprised that the government's model does not factor in their contributions.

etc.

(30-01-2013, 10:05 AM)HitandRun Wrote: The working population generates goods and services for all of the population to consume (ignoring imports/exports for the moment). When the working population decreases but if the demand for goods and services remain the same or goes up, there can only be 1 impact.

Price of goods and services will rise. A retired person might realise that his retirement funds are insufficient if the inflation in the price of goods and services rise beyond his expectations. In a general sense, I agree with the government's position.

My thoughts...

Assuming prices will rise like you suggested, your reason being low supply of goods/services due to falling working populaton.

The governement's solution is to increase the population through immigrants. No doubt, the increase in populatioin will lead to larger supply of goods/services, but do not forget, this same group of people will lead to a corresponding demand of goods/servces. Moreover, with limited land supply in singapore, wont these larger group of immigrants inflate property prices further and raise COE higher? (you get more inflation now)

(30-01-2013, 10:05 AM)HitandRun Wrote: The working population generates goods and services for all of the population to consume (ignoring imports/exports for the moment). When the working population decreases but if the demand for goods and services remain the same or goes up, there can only be 1 impact. Price of goods and services will rise. A retired person might realise that his retirement funds are insufficient if the inflation in the price of goods and services rise beyond his expectations. In a general sense, I agree with the government's position.

In addition, the government revenue will drop due to lower tax revenue and expenditure will increase due to elder care.
S'pore dollar will become weak as the dollar in circulation remains roughly the same while the domestic economy weakens.

Although many people sneer at GIC and Temasek for investing overseas while abandoning local companies, it is actually making a lot of sense if we are heading towards an aging population scenario. We will need to earn more foreign currencies through investments rather than through export of products and services.

(30-01-2013, 10:24 AM)safetyfirst Wrote: The governement's solution is to increase the population through immigrants. No doubt, the increase in populatioin will lead to larger supply of goods/services, but do not forget, this same group of people will lead to a corresponding demand of goods/servces. Moreover, with limited land supply in singapore, wont these larger group of immigrants inflate property prices further and raise COE higher? (you get more inflation now)

The assumption is that the working population tends to create a surplus of goods and services, which is pretty logical to me. Does the average person save most of his money while he is working or retired?

Whoops. I think I misunderstood your question. With a larger group of immigrants, it is possible for property prices and COE prices to go up. If we can control the pace well, perhaps it (the inflation) would be moderated if we could slowly ramp up the supply of property and COE.

Quote: Actually, the white paper is necessary for the citizens to make their own decisions of the future of Singapore and I respect the current gov from committing political suicide by releasing this white paper(maybe they are thinking of quitting????)
Or maybe they are just ignorant or arrogant.

In my opinion this is an astute move. You open this issue for debate, and everyone can have their go at it including the opposition in parliament to see if they have anything useful to say. It may be a difficult process, but at least nobody from now on can say that they have not been consulted, or the govt is doing things on the sly, etc etc. The numbers and planning parameters are there for all to see. If one thinks for example the new hospitals are still not enough, now is the time to say that (which I think it is not enough - and oppos should press the govt to amend these planning parameters during the debate).

It is also priming the population (those who have children often use this tactic) of things to come, and set the expectations low. If the infrastructure build keeps up/is successful, then things will feel better from now on and they might be able to stem be bleeding by 2016. Or they might have reconciled themselves to having more opposition-held seats, and decided in this difficult period it is futile to try and be more populist to maintain a 90%+ hold on parliament. A 2/3 working supermajority would be more than sufficient.

As an aside, who sees PAP succession as an issue? I personally do, because I cannot yet see a strong PM contender (not only he must be able to manage the country, he must be able to control the party) from the second ranks for the time being.

Quote:Although many people sneer at GIC and Temasek for investing overseas while abandoning local companies

The same people would say that GIC and Temasek is overwhelming/killing/bulldozing local companies by indiscreetly backing winners if they invest locally. And it will generate even more epic inflation from the current levels. So you can't please all, and some will not be pleased no matter what because its easier to rant online than to think about solutions/possibilities. You have to do what you have to do.