Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

In terms of population density, Singapore is way lower compared to many cities in the world. With proper planning, it is should be manageble.

wow today news, or i think after every boom and bust, someone up there will come out and say again and promise -

"THE SWISS STANDARD OF LIVING" - more vibrant, most liveable city/country in the world


why dun they promise to pick the moon for us?
why dun they make a merger and acquisition with HK govt? I believe HK govt or HKMA can better protect the people's interests better.

read mr wangsayso blog http://mrwangsaysso.blogspot.sg/
he said national cost of growing old is perhaps not that large. many worried about aging population., no more vibrant no more gdp may be a myth.

You are sorely mistaken about the capability of the HK govt

(31-01-2013, 11:27 PM)pianist Wrote: why dun they make a merger and acquisition with HK govt? I believe HK govt or HKMA can better protect the people's interests better.

---

(30-01-2013, 12:39 PM)Mr Nobody Wrote: Does it occur to anyone that by bringing in qualified foreigners (as workers, as PRs -> citizens) with "qualities" > those of the locally produced, the "overall standard" of Singapore (e.g. % of PMET -> gov's KPI) will be raised?

[When the standard is raised, those who can't cope will KPKB as usual, and vent their anger through their votes.]

Does it occur to you that this is more difficult and complicated than theory? There's a difference between bringing FT in and increasing local capabilities. See how China executes this in their learning curve as they are taking a different track due to their strong bargaining power and insisting on capability transfers. You can't cross fertilise talents by just plucking a foreigner (and debatable on the talent part) into the pot. Our MNC strategies for the past 50 years is testament of that: we upgrade ourselves to meet the needs of the MNCs for win-win, but end of day we are subordinates.

FT like John Olds did nothing worthwhile while Khaw has done well. Our table tennis development is also an interesting case study if local standards are indeed improved substantially. I'm waiting to see future of Biopolis based on this theory.

specuvestor, it's true that we become subordinates. But, it's a higher level subordinates. Ang mo takes the top of food chain, we take middle, other developing countries become bottom feeder.

At least, we are better off with MNC.

"Aiyah! LER con SEMIT? AKA Who in Sink apore benefit? PAPYS or YOU?

Wa kong "fact".

They just keep making people choose not to trust what they say .

(31-01-2013, 11:20 PM)Share Investor Wrote: In terms of population density, Singapore is way lower compared to many cities in the world. With proper planning, it is should be manageble.

that's what you think!

10 years ago, i can always enter the mrt, even during peak periods.
5 years ago, i would have to squeeze into the the train during peak periods.
Today, I would have to wait for 2 trains to pass over first, then i have a chance of entering the 3rd train.

How is this manageable?

---

(01-02-2013, 08:28 AM)Thriftville Wrote: Wa kong "fact".

haha and your kids serve ns to stay in the middle class. you must be elated

Manageable ? 10 people live in one 3-Room flat also manageable.
Affordable ? To the rich 20m mansion also affordable.
Do we need to emulate what these million $ policy makers said ? We are just as good as or slightly better off than peasants.

As I reflect on many posts online (here and other forum), I have the following thoughts:

1. If Singapore had not succeeded in our transformation from 3rd world to 1st during the 30 years after 1965, but had instead developed at about the same pace as our neighbors, will we be debating whether to increase population or trying to reduce population? In other words, if we are no more attractive (as an investment destination) than our neighbors today, what type of job opportunities will there be? Having come this far, do I now want our country to stand still and let other cities catch up; or do I push on to maintain the relative attractiveness? Therefore I tell myself that I am thankful that, today, Singapore can choose how many and who to bring in; instead of having to struggle and compete with our neighbors for the same job opportunities.

2. Globalization. I think this is one word that we are familiar with; and today the whole World is facing it and has to learn to deal with it. Instead of shaking my head and say I pity our next generation, I am thankful that we are not artificially shielded from its impact but instead we have people working hard to educate and to develop the only resource that we have (see how much ITE has been transformed, SOTA, SMU, etc) so that we have a better chance to be successful in the field that we choose.

3. I'm in my late forties this year and will be in my sixties come 2030. I also would like to have a peaceful haven (maybe Pulau Ubin) where I can relax, enjoy life, no jam, no pollution, no flood, low costs, etc. Should I protest and tell Government to slow down and say it is ok, without considering carefully the full impact of a shrinking economy on our future generation - the younger people? Will they still find jobs if our economy slows? Will they find jobs that fulfills their aspiration? I do not have the answers but I know for sure that it is not as simple as slowing down the GDP growth.

So much for now.