Government determined to increase population to 7 mil in 2030.

[arthur]

WP opposes Population White Paper, says its chairman Sylvia Lim
Published on Feb 04, 2013, ST
6:50 PM
By Rachel Chang

THE Workers' Party opposes the Government's Population White Paper , said party chairman Sylvia Lim in Parliament today.

It believes that the Government, in expanding the population to reach its economic growth targets, has gotten its priorities the wrong way around, she said.

Ms Lim laid out the WP's stance on the first day of the parliamentary debate, setting the agenda for her party's nine MPs.

It proposes an alternative population projection of about 5.9 million by 2030, and a greater tradeoff between economic growth and population expansion.

Singapore should work towards a more modest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate of 2.5 to 3 per cent to 2020, and 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent from 2020 to 2030.

This is about half a percentage point lower than the White Paper's projections.

Ms Lim also said that senior citizens "are not as much of a burden" as the Government is making them out to be.

A key plank of the White Paper's argument is that by 2030, there will only be 2.1 working citizens to support every person 65 years old and above, down from 5.9 now.

This assumes that senior citizens do not have economic resources of their own and will not be able to contribute to the economy, said Ms Lim. The WP believes they should be seen as resources, not burdens, she added.

Ms Lim also took aim at the Government's "half-hearted" attempts to boost the total fertility rate (TFR), which stems from the fact that immigration remains its key approach to augment the population. The Government seems "resigned" that the TFR will not improve greatly, and has not invested as much resources or tackled the issue as thoroughly as other counties like South Korea have done, she said.

In a parting shot, Ms Lim charged that the Population White Paper's title - "A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore" - illustrated the Government's muddled priorities. Rather, it should be titled "A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore," she said.

---

SINGAPORE: Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean has presented in Parliament the White Paper on Population, a roadmap to address Singapore's demographic challenges.

The Land Use Plan was presented along with the White Paper.

The White Paper comes on the back of a shrinking and greying population in Singapore.

Mr Teo, who is also minister-in-charge of population policies, addressed the various concerns Singaporeans have raised over the past week following the release of the White Paper and the Land Use Plan.

First, the projected population of 6.9 million by 2030.

Mr Teo said the White Paper in fact is proposing a major shift - a significant slowdown in Singapore's growth rate of workforce and population growth.

For example, population growth rate is in fact projected to drop to about half the historical growth rate.

Up to 2020, Singapore will also slow down the rate of workforce growth to 1% to 2%. Mr Teo said this is half of what it was before. Beyond that, he said, the White Paper projects a further reduction to about 1% per year.

"This is a significant reduction, just a third of what it was before," he said.

He added the government is not deciding on a population of 6.9 million by 2030.

The figure, he stressed, is only to prepare infrastructure plans.

What the population will be like in 2030, he said, will depend on the needs of Singaporeans and the decisions made on economic and workforce polices along the way.

Stressing that the report seeks to strike a fine balance, Mr Teo said it is fundamentally for the benefit of Singaporeans.

"We hope that with restructuring and productivity gains, with Singaporeans living healthier and longer and therefore choosing to remain in the workforce longer, and more women joining the workforce, our population will not reach 6.9 million.

"It is the ability to meet the needs of Singaporeans and provide a good quality of life that is the driver, not the numbers per se. If we are able to achieve this with a smaller population, whether 6.5 million or perhaps even lower, there is no reason to go higher."

Mr Teo added that if Singapore can raise its birth rate, then fewer immigrants are needed.

Mr Teo also addressed concerns over whether the government is pro-Singaporean or pro-foreigner.

He reiterated the need for immigrants to augment the Singaporean workforce.

For example, as more Singaporeans take up professional jobs, there is a need for foreign workers to take on the lower-skilled jobs, said Mr Teo.

He added the Singapore government is not pursuing growth at all cost.

"We are certainly not pursuing growth at all costs, as some have mistakenly claimed. Instead, we have set our sights on high-quality, productivity-driven, sustainable growth that will help to create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans," said Mr Teo.

There is also a need for foreigners to take on the jobs in emerging industries as the Singaporean workforce builds up its capability to take on such jobs.

Mr Teo said: "Let us be clear. These foreign workers are here to support Singaporeans' needs. For example, we expect to need significantly more healthcare, eldercare and domestic services workers to support our ageing population and working families. A visit to any nursing home will show you that. They build our homes, rail lines and roads, and clean our housing estates.

"They thus enable Singaporeans to enjoy good social and municipal services while moderating the cost of these services, contribute to our quality of life, and allow more Singaporeans to be in the workforce.

"But even so, the numbers of foreign workers will be controlled and their overall growth rate significantly reduced in the coming years. Industries currently dependent on foreign workers will have to learn to do more with less."

As to questions on whether Singapore will be over-crowded in future, Mr Teo listed the efforts taken by various agencies to ramp up infrastructure and build ahead of demand.

Parliament will debate the White Paper and the Land Use Plan over the next few days, with 60 MPs slated to speak on the issue.

- CNA/ir

[sgd]

actually the WP 5.9m proposal is better, more easier to swallow and makes more sense. Actually now at 5.18 mil employment is also close to 100% everything is already straining why does the government still want to bring more people in and expand capacity? Do they want everything to breakdown then only they are happy?

Also what happens if the economy hits a bump down the road what will happen if they bring more and more and suddenly we enter a recession then as businesses downsize what are we going to do with all this extra manpower capacity? How we going to feed all these people? Send them back?

Ideally in a recession If they are on EP you can cancel send them back but there will be so many who will be PR there's no way you can stop them or block them and it will affect Singaporeans.

[mrEngineer]

"We are certainly not pursuing growth at all costs, as some have mistakenly claimed. Instead, we have set our sights on high-quality, productivity-driven, sustainable growth that will help to create good jobs, raise wages and improve the lives of Singaporeans," said Mr Teo.

Seriously, he should elaborate this on how the govt plans to execute this and not just stating it..

[pianist]

maybe a bill should be moved in the parliament to require all ministers recite the nation's pledge and sing national anthem every morning, to remind them of their service to the people.

[arthur]

A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore: Reclaiming Back Singapore – MP Sylvia Lim

This debate may be one of the most critical Parliament will have. It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore.

Since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, we had 4 million in the year 2000, and in 2010, 5 million. The share of Singapore citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly 4 are foreigners. Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege, wondering what happened to the Singapore they grew up in and whether they have a place at the table.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore’s demographic challenge. The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity; it will also place us on a course towards needing even larger population injections in the future, which we do not believe is sustainable. While we accept that trade-offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets. Let me elaborate.

What is a Singaporean “Core”?

A key plank of the White Paper is its claim that it is proposing to keep a Singaporean “core” in the roadmap. It is proposing that Singapore citizens form 55% of the population as at 2030, which is significantly down from the 62% currently. 55% is too close to the all important threshold of 50% majority. Furthermore, a closer reading will also show that this 55% includes new citizens. Singapore citizens are projected to make up 3.7 million at 2030. If we were to look at the number of new citizenships given out since 2004, and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what % of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Wouldn’t this figure be below 50%? Is this what the government means by retaining a Singaporean “core”?

The White Paper states that “Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of the nation”, with the word “heart” printed in bold italics. It further states that “To be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean core.” Madam Speaker, instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family. This can only be cultivated over time, in institutional settings such as schooling, national service and community service. A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who grow up in and with Singapore.

Therefore, the policy of “topping up” shortfalls in our total fertility rate (TFR) with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean “core” is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with the new citizens we have, with a government department looking into the matter. Madam, you yourself as a backbencher had raised concerns about how new citizenships were given out and whether tests should be instituted to ensure that the new citizens understood our way of life. Speaking personally, I count some new citizens as my friends; while they make good contributions to Singapore’s economy, I know they see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.

Accordingly, we do not agree with the government’s definition of what constitutes a Singaporean “core”. Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.

Focus instead on TFR recovery

How then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean total fertility rate (TFR). The government has invested somewhat in marriage and procreation incentives. However, so long as immigration remains the government’s key plank for population growth, the measures to improve TFR will remain half-hearted, since one can always resort to immigration top-ups.

Why is Singapore a global champion in low fertility rate? There are structural problems which have not been addressed. These include lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and others. The government seems resigned that TFR is not within their power to raise, saying it “hopes” to reverse the trend. However, other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.

For instance, South Korea too was facing a low fertility rate. However, it has been successful in reversing the declining trend and its TFR recovered by 0.15 in 5 years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just “hoping”, the Korean government recognized that procreation was being discouraged not by individual choice but due to structural institutional factors. The Korean government then set explicit hard targets to remove institutional obstacles to boosting TFR. These targets centred on providing institutional support for family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents’ share of childrearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework. The commitment and approach of the Korean government is worth study.

My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate.

Promoting Singaporean-Friendly Immigration

We are not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans per se. One way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. As noted in the White Paper, 40% of marriages today are between a Singaporean and a foreigner. These non-Singaporean spouses are much more likely to integrate and be committed to Singapore. They will interact with Singaporeans, and be parents of Singaporean children.

Currently, many Singaporeans apply repeatedly, year after year, for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status. Many are on Long Term Visit Pass which makes employment very difficult. Has the government studied how far this pool of foreign spouses in Singapore is an untapped economic resource? Could this be a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour?

Do we really need a population of up to 6.9 million?

Since the release of the White Paper last Tuesday, the public has been fixated on largely one issue – the prospect of Singapore having a population of 6.9 million. The government has justified the population growth projection largely due to its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3-4% from now to 2020, and 2-3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The government also justifies these targets by citing the aging population and the declining old-age support ratio.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the government’s suggested path.

Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation’s quality of life. To quote population expert, Frederick Meyerson, immigration is “essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations” (Meyerson, F. (2001). Replacement Migration: A Questionable Tactic for Delaying the Inevitable Effects of Fertility Transition. Population and Environment, 22:4. 401-409.). Second, immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants.

What about land resources? The implications of planning for 6.9 million on our land use is instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority shows how little room we would have left to move. Under the plan for a population of 6.9 million, we will use up significantly more land. From 2010 to 2030, we will consume much more of our land bank, leaving the balance land under the “Others” category down from 14% to just 4% for future generations to cope with.

In short, are we simply kicking a big can down the road for our grandchildren?

At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution. It is still not too late now to continue the discussion with Singaporeans on this fundamental issue, instead of pushing this White Paper through.

Madam, on our part, the Workers’ Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the government is proposing. This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days.

We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.

This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it. We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate.

Our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the government’s projections, in exchange for a reduction of GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singapore identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds.

Conclusion

What the government is proposing in this White Paper is to aim for its GDP targets and grow the population to achieve it. The Workers’ Party believes that the well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the government’s proposal. Is it worth it?

The government’s White Paper is entitled: “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”. While sustainability and dynamism are indeed important, we believe the government has gotten these priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, we should have “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.

For these reasons, the Workers’ Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population and will oppose the Motion.

http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-populatio...ylvia-lim/

[2V.]

In summary , increase of higher property prices, better GDP numbers resulted higher social cost to everyone .

I thought I could relax after further 10-15 years working life. Now I need to work harder to buy 2 more properties for my kids . This is unnecessary stress!

A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore: Reclaiming Back Singapore – MP Sylvia Lim

This debate may be one of the most critical Parliament will have. It is not just about population. It is about nationhood, the meaning of being Singaporean, how we want to face the future as a country. It is about reclaiming back Singapore.

Since 1990, Singaporeans have been subject to drastic population increases in a short time. From a population of 3 million in 1990, we had 4 million in the year 2000, and in 2010, 5 million. The share of Singapore citizens now stands at 62%, meaning that out of every 10 people, nearly 4 are foreigners. Indigenous Singaporeans feel under siege, wondering what happened to the Singapore they grew up in and whether they have a place at the table.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population as the population policy roadmap to address Singapore’s demographic challenge. The roadmap proposed in the White Paper will further dilute our national identity; it will also place us on a course towards needing even larger population injections in the future, which we do not believe is sustainable. While we accept that trade-offs have to be made, we believe such trade-offs should be made in favour of the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets. Let me elaborate.

What is a Singaporean “Core”?

A key plank of the White Paper is its claim that it is proposing to keep a Singaporean “core” in the roadmap. It is proposing that Singapore citizens form 55% of the population as at 2030, which is significantly down from the 62% currently. 55% is too close to the all important threshold of 50% majority. Furthermore, a closer reading will also show that this 55% includes new citizens. Singapore citizens are projected to make up 3.7 million at 2030. If we were to look at the number of new citizenships given out since 2004, and add the new citizenships to be given out from now till 2030, what % of the population would be Singaporeans who have grown up here? Wouldn’t this figure be below 50%? Is this what the government means by retaining a Singaporean “core”?

The White Paper states that “Singaporeans form the core of our society and the heart of the nation”, with the word “heart” printed in bold italics. It further states that “To be a strong and cohesive society, we must have a strong Singaporean core.” Madam Speaker, instant citizens can be Singaporean in name and have all citizenship rights, but for the Singapore core to be strong, the core must be strongly Singaporean in values, worldview, culture, sense of place and history, and network of friends and family. This can only be cultivated over time, in institutional settings such as schooling, national service and community service. A strong Singaporean core should be made up of Singaporeans who grow up in and with Singapore.

Therefore, the policy of “topping up” shortfalls in our total fertility rate (TFR) with younger immigrants to make up the Singaporean “core” is flawed. The fact is that we are already facing integration issues with the new citizens we have, with a government department looking into the matter. Madam, you yourself as a backbencher had raised concerns about how new citizenships were given out and whether tests should be instituted to ensure that the new citizens understood our way of life. Speaking personally, I count some new citizens as my friends; while they make good contributions to Singapore’s economy, I know they see Singapore through a different lens, and can equally make a decision to leave if the circumstances change.

Accordingly, we do not agree with the government’s definition of what constitutes a Singaporean “core”. Under the roadmap proposed, Singaporeans who grew up here would fall below 50%, which would change the character of Singapore forever.

Focus instead on TFR recovery

How then, should we ensure a Singaporean core in our population? In our view, the best way is to improve Singaporean total fertility rate (TFR). The government has invested somewhat in marriage and procreation incentives. However, so long as immigration remains the government’s key plank for population growth, the measures to improve TFR will remain half-hearted, since one can always resort to immigration top-ups.

Why is Singapore a global champion in low fertility rate? There are structural problems which have not been addressed. These include lack of work-life balance, escalating housing prices, the stressful education system and others. The government seems resigned that TFR is not within their power to raise, saying it “hopes” to reverse the trend. However, other governments have been more committed and have shown significant success in reversing declining fertility.

For instance, South Korea too was facing a low fertility rate. However, it has been successful in reversing the declining trend and its TFR recovered by 0.15 in 5 years, from 1.08 in 2005 to 1.23 in 2010. Instead of just “hoping”, the Korean government recognized that procreation was being discouraged not by individual choice but due to structural institutional factors. The Korean government then set explicit hard targets to remove institutional obstacles to boosting TFR. These targets centred on providing institutional support for family life and promoting gender equity within the family. The government tracked hard statistics such as reducing parents’ share of childrearing costs, increasing GDP share of family-related spending, promoting arrangements for mothers to continue working, and even encouraging fathers to share housework. The commitment and approach of the Korean government is worth study.

My colleagues will speak more about the TFR issue later in the debate.

Promoting Singaporean-Friendly Immigration

We are not against immigrants becoming Singaporeans per se. One way to do this in a natural, organic manner is to prioritise citizenships to those who marry Singaporeans. As noted in the White Paper, 40% of marriages today are between a Singaporean and a foreigner. These non-Singaporean spouses are much more likely to integrate and be committed to Singapore. They will interact with Singaporeans, and be parents of Singaporean children.

Currently, many Singaporeans apply repeatedly, year after year, for their foreign spouses to be given citizenship status. Many are on Long Term Visit Pass which makes employment very difficult. Has the government studied how far this pool of foreign spouses in Singapore is an untapped economic resource? Could this be a good alternative to bringing in more foreign labour?

Do we really need a population of up to 6.9 million?

Since the release of the White Paper last Tuesday, the public has been fixated on largely one issue – the prospect of Singapore having a population of 6.9 million. The government has justified the population growth projection largely due to its GDP targets. It is gunning for GDP growth of 3-4% from now to 2020, and 2-3% growth from 2020 to 2030. The government also justifies these targets by citing the aging population and the declining old-age support ratio.

The Workers’ Party does not endorse proceeding headlong into the government’s suggested path.

Underlying its plan is that population injections of that magnitude are required for a dynamic economy. The proposal has severe ramifications. First, the economy is but one aspect of the nation’s quality of life. To quote population expert, Frederick Meyerson, immigration is “essentially a one-way policy tool with permanent or long-term social, economic and environmental consequences, and it cannot be reversed without human rights violations” (Meyerson, F. (2001). Replacement Migration: A Questionable Tactic for Delaying the Inevitable Effects of Fertility Transition. Population and Environment, 22:4. 401-409.). Second, immigrants grow old and consume public services as well, adding to the burden of the national budget. Who will support them when they grow old? By that time, it may be very difficult to try to solve our population needs through improving TFR, but instead have another White Paper to justify bringing in even larger numbers of immigrants.

What about land resources? The implications of planning for 6.9 million on our land use is instructive, and worrying. If we follow the White Paper proposal, the land use data prepared by the Urban Redevelopment Authority shows how little room we would have left to move. Under the plan for a population of 6.9 million, we will use up significantly more land. From 2010 to 2030, we will consume much more of our land bank, leaving the balance land under the “Others” category down from 14% to just 4% for future generations to cope with.

In short, are we simply kicking a big can down the road for our grandchildren?

At this critical time, we urge calmness and caution. It is still not too late now to continue the discussion with Singaporeans on this fundamental issue, instead of pushing this White Paper through.

Madam, on our part, the Workers’ Party would like to suggest an alternative approach to address the demographic challenge. Instead of the trade-off proposed by the government to achieve its GDP growth targets, we propose a trade-off of having a more moderate GDP growth, lower by 0.5% to 1% below what the government is proposing. This approach will reduce the population injections required to churn the economy. Let me sketch this out and let my colleagues expand further in the coming days.

We believe that Singapore should instead work towards a more modest GDP growth of 2.5 to 3.5% per year up to 2020, and from 2020 to 2030, 1.5 to 2.5% per year. We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. Using the old-age support ratio to justify the need for higher GDP growth ignores the fact that, increasingly over time, many of our seniors would have their own economic resources to live on, reducing their need to be supported. Many seniors are also retiring later. Indeed, there is potential to tap our seniors further as a resource, rather than view them as a burden. Third, the more modest growth rate would consume less resources and be in line with sustainable development, preserving our precious land reserves for future generations.

This more modest GDP growth rate from now to 2030 would require a lower population to sustain it. We have done some estimates and believe that this is achievable with a population at 2030 of 5.9 million or less. My colleagues will elaborate on these projections later in the debate.

Our proposed trade-off is having 1 million less people than the government’s projections, in exchange for a reduction of GDP growth of 0.5% to 1%. This trade-off will mean less overcrowding, better integration of newcomers, a stronger Singapore identity, and less stressful labour market competition. This, in turn, is likely to have knock-on effects on TFR recovery. It will also not be at the expense of market competitiveness, as our economy continues to restructure to push the proportion of Singaporeans in PMET jobs from half to two-thirds.

Conclusion

What the government is proposing in this White Paper is to aim for its GDP targets and grow the population to achieve it. The Workers’ Party believes that the well-being of Singaporeans, our quality of life and our very identity will be put at peril under the government’s proposal. Is it worth it?

The government’s White Paper is entitled: “A Sustainable Population for a Dynamic Singapore”. While sustainability and dynamism are indeed important, we believe the government has gotten these priorities the wrong way round. Instead of having a sustainable population for a dynamic Singapore, we should have “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.

For these reasons, the Workers’ Party does not endorse the White Paper on Population and will oppose the Motion.

http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-populatio...ylvia-lim/

[violinist]

The old is supporting the young now - to buy that million-dollar HDB flat, to buy that $100k COE, to pay for that luxurious wedding, to study overseas .....

[arthur]

The old is supporting the young now - to buy that million-dollar HDB flat, to buy that $100k COE, to pay for that luxurious wedding, to study overseas .....

Or we can turn on its head, saying the young is supporting the old by buying million dollar HDB so that the old can have retirement funds while the young slog away their lives for that pigeon hole.

End of day, both sides of the coin don't gain except the Ministry of Finance and IRAS + foreigners who throw back the pink/blur IC at ICA.

[pianist]

[/size]from mrwangsayso blog

The National Cost of Growing Old .... Is Perhaps Not That Large


An article from Today:
Greying population could 'cost Govt S$13b more by 2025'
by Teo Xuanwei
SINGAPORE - By 2025, public services for what will be a greyer Singapore could cost the Government S$79 billion, or S$13 billion more than what it spends today, according to a new report released by global management consultancy Accenture.
Even as the Government has highlighted the effects of the dramatic demographic shift in the coming years, including higher social spending, this is the first time an estimate of the cost has been worked out.
According to Accenture's report, which covers 10 countries, the increased spending in public services - defence and public safety, education, housing and healthcare - will come up to the same percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025 as it stood last year at 12 per cent. [size=small]

The less-informed reader might feel scared. "Oh my goodness," he will say, "How can Singapore afford all these costs?"

There are many possible ways. For example, as senior citizens form an increasing proportion of the population, younger people form a decreasing proportion. In other words, there will be fewer young people for the government to look after. Increased expenditure on the old can be offset by decreased expenditure on the young. For example, if Singapore has fewer young people, government expenditure on education must logically decrease.

Also, fiscal spending isn't necessarily a bad thing (although the PAP will never be heard to tell you that). Government spending on areas such as geriatric healthcare must surely create jobs and stimulate economic growth to some extent. For example, there will be more jobs for nurses, doctors and other people who run and manage hospitals and old folks homes.

[Bibi]

In summary , increase of higher property prices, better GDP numbers resulted higher social cost to everyone .

I thought I could relax after further 10-15 years working life. Now I need to work harder to buy 2 more properties for my kids . This is unnecessary stress!

You have the same thinking as my colleague. But do you think your kids will be able to do the same to your grandchildren?