Singapore Expats Forum

Another 30% population jump in Singapore by 2030?

Discuss about any latest news or current affairs in Singapore or globally. Please DO NOT copy and paste news articles from other sources without written permission.
Pal
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed, 23 Jul 2003
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Another 30% population jump in Singapore by 2030?

Postby Pal » Tue, 29 Jan 2013 8:38 pm

From the latest population white paper (Jan 2013) - By 2030, Singapore’s total population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million.

Read more here:
http://news.yahoo.com/singapore-wants-b ... iness.html

User avatar
wwww
Regular
Regular
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon, 09 Feb 2009
Location: lah-lah-land

Re: Another 30% population jump in Singapore by 2030?

Postby wwww » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 8:07 am

Pal wrote:From the latest population white paper (Jan 2013) - By 2030, Singapore’s total population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million.

Read more here:
http://news.yahoo.com/singapore-wants-b ... iness.html


This wasn't a clever thing to announce considering how sensitive the Singaporeans are about this subject (quite understandably so...). PAP is due for another ugly beating during the next GE.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 8:46 am

Probably the biggest lie was the fact that they are saying that the local PMET population will take up 2/3s of the PMET positions instead of the 50% they currently have. Where are they going to come from? I mean you really gotta think. They cannot even see the necessity of bringing in foreigners to keep the machinery running because they aren't producing enough babies. Add to that, the greying population is living longer & longer and will have less & less support with fewer babies to take care of them. Where are the workers going to come from. Who's going to power the industries that keep 'em in mobile phones and flat screen TV & new cars? If they cannot see these simple facts, how in the hell are they going to qualify as PMETs?

If the local population cannot see those simple facts, how in the hell are they going to have enough smarts to qualify as PMETs!

User avatar
ProvenPracticalFlexible
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu, 13 Apr 2006
Location: East Coast

Postby ProvenPracticalFlexible » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:02 am

Some points I pick up from the numbers:

PR population is going to remain the same and population to go up by mostly new citizens (from PRs I assume). So basically getting PR will become more difficult, only to replace the ones that pick up citizenship or leave.

Most of the new numbers will then come from adding 1 Million more foreigners on all kinds of employment and work passes.

This kind of makes sense, as it helps keeping the support ratios as the foreigners are not likely to be allowed to stay after they stop working.

Which makes to think which one is "better" PR, the one that remains in Singapore after retirement or becomes citizen at older age (in order to remain in Singapore) or the one that stays for 30-40 years and leaves after that to retire somewhere else. Officially with the integration speak it should be the first one, but from clearly economics point of view shouldn't the latter one be an ideal one. A PR has done his/her purpose when he stops working and contributing to the society.

So in summary what will change, not much. Singaporeans will complain and we'll expect more of those "rejected but you are welcome to remain under current employment pass" threads in here :)

It still leaves open topics like raising the retirement age, which is for sure to come. No developed country can afford 50 something to be a common retirement age.

Still whether there is place for one million more foreigners in Singapore or not, it would be great if at least some politicians or political parties picked up the Singapore thinking in Europe. Instead of promising more money to people based on miracle economical forecasts.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:55 am

ProvenPracticalFlexible wrote:
Which makes to think which one is "better" PR, the one that remains in Singapore after retirement or becomes citizen at older age (in order to remain in Singapore) or the one that stays for 30-40 years and leaves after that to retire somewhere else. Officially with the integration speak it should be the first one, but from clearly economics point of view shouldn't the latter one be an ideal one. A PR has done his/her purpose when he stops working and contributing to the society.


This has always been my ultimate goal, to be honest, and I've stated this before. When I am no longer able to contribute to the country, as a PR it's time for me to go. If I were planning to retire here I would have applied for citizenship, especially considering my wife and childred are all citizens. As long as I can contribute, then my being here is still justified. When I go, we all will be going and someone else can fill that void who can continue to contribute to the little Red Dot.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9160
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:39 am

In principle you can contribute by spending. It would be interesting to see how much one would need to spend to have the same impact to the economy as a hypothetical average working person.

User avatar
ProvenPracticalFlexible
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu, 13 Apr 2006
Location: East Coast

Postby ProvenPracticalFlexible » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 9:40 pm

x9200 wrote:In principle you can contribute by spending. It would be interesting to see how much one would need to spend to have the same impact to the economy as a hypothetical average working person.


for sure spending can be enough to justify your staying. how much would be enough for ICA? I'd guess some indication would come from the salary levels required for LTVPs to bring in dependents. A way to be certain if you spend more than an average tourist every day, you're on the safe side. And of course spending on services that hire locals:)

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: Another 30% population jump in Singapore by 2030?

Postby JR8 » Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:52 pm

Pal wrote:From the latest population white paper (Jan 2013) - By 2030, Singapore’s total population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million.


Got to do something to ensure property prices rise perpetually.

People who feel they're 'doing well' tend to lack motive or interest in fomenting revolution.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:09 am

Looking at all of the stats that were presented, there is going to be a glut of 700,000 more units built by 2030 as well. That may well cause some deflation of property values, I'd think.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Thu, 31 Jan 2013 1:03 am

sundaymorningstaple wrote:Looking at all of the stats that were presented, there is going to be a glut of 700,000 more units built by 2030 as well. That may well cause some deflation of property values, I'd think.


Hmmm. The cynic in me would ponder whether that is by accident or design. How can they project the number of 'new units' 17 years hence? If this stated fact were a problem, then they have 17 years to rectify it too.

My gut feel is they're going to keep bringing in immigrants, and 2nd/3rd-world immigrants who get handed the keys to Never-Never land are inclined to vote for the party who bestowed such riches upon them.

[/ old cynic]

User avatar
v4jr4
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon, 09 Jul 2012
Location: Chocolate Factory

Postby v4jr4 » Thu, 31 Jan 2013 4:16 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:This has always been my ultimate goal, to be honest, and I've stated this before. When I am no longer able to contribute to the country, as a PR it's time for me to go. If I were planning to retire here I would have applied for citizenship, especially considering my wife and children are all citizens. As long as I can contribute, then my being here is still justified. When I go, we all will be going and someone else can fill that void who can continue to contribute to the little Red Dot.


Perhaps, the next question is "where", which can be related to "when".
Personally, I still wonder about the "currency war" in Asia, financial crisis in Europe, and fiscal cliff in US. Not sure about Australia or UK. Guess I'm just thinking too much :-|
"Budget Expat"

morenangpinay
Reporter
Reporter
Posts: 890
Joined: Mon, 02 Mar 2009

Postby morenangpinay » Thu, 31 Jan 2013 4:49 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:Probably the biggest lie was the fact that they are saying that the local PMET population will take up 2/3s of the PMET positions instead of the 50% they currently have. Where are they going to come from? I mean you really gotta think. They cannot even see the necessity of bringing in foreigners to keep the machinery running because they aren't producing enough babies. Add to that, the greying population is living longer & longer and will have less & less support with fewer babies to take care of them. Where are the workers going to come from. Who's going to power the industries that keep 'em in mobile phones and flat screen TV & new cars? If they cannot see these simple facts, how in the hell are they going to qualify as PMETs?

If the local population cannot see those simple facts, how in the hell are they going to have enough smarts to qualify as PMETs!


thats what i dont understand...they with their world class degrees and all cant see that singapore doesnt have any other resources like other countries and that they need more people to keep attracting those mncs.

well somewhat related to the foreign pass issue, i know there are several entrepass holders being rejected in their renewals. so i get the feeling they only want the large scale business people

User avatar
ScoobyDoes
Manager
Manager
Posts: 1649
Joined: Wed, 29 Nov 2006
Location: A More Lucky Spot

Postby ScoobyDoes » Thu, 31 Jan 2013 5:39 pm

Given the story in the cage lining at the weekend about Chinese graduates shunning jobs in factories because that is beneath their new found level (despite the factories now paying 3x anywhere else) you have to wonder where SG is going to get it's worker, PAP voting base from?

The graduate in question, took part time jobs, including a night security officer JUST because he didn't want to work in a factory despite growing up tending rice fields.

I said it before, one day the globe will run out of people to 'do those jobs' and despite rising and rising salaries to compensate for the perceived loss of face there won't be anything that can be done about it until just learn to get stuck in with whatever needs done.

That from a white guy that DID work in a Chinese factory :roll:
'When Lewis Hamilton wins a race he has to thank Vodafone whereas in my day I used to chase the crumpet. I know which era I'd rather race in.'

SIR Stirling Moss OBE

User avatar
Wd40
Director
Director
Posts: 3788
Joined: Tue, 04 Dec 2012
Location: SIndiapore

Postby Wd40 » Tue, 05 Feb 2013 6:57 pm

This topic is turning out to be very very interesting. First white paper comes out and gahmen justifies the need for the population increase and pacifying people that infrastructure will also follow suit, I guess they completely misread the ground sentiment, assuming that infrastructure woes are the issue resulting from increased population. The real problem is the very presence of foreigners(Xenophobia). And now when the sentiment on ground worsens the gahmen says its not a target but worst case scenario and now WP MP completely smashing the white paper, infact twisting the title itself.

Very interesting drama unfolding :)

BTW, OSOD, what did your signature read "Longing for the days when Singapore had 2mn population" or something of that sort. I just cant stop :lol:

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34258
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 05 Feb 2013 9:22 pm

WD40, have you actually read the White Paper yet? I have. In fact I have a hardcopy of in lying in front of me at the moment. I've had the soft copy for about a week but just printed out a hard copy today a work.

You really need to read it, else you sound just like all the ignorant locals who are whinging because they formed all their opinions from the garbage can liner which is so inaccurate as to be totally laughable if it weren't so dangerous to the well being of the country. The government hasn't changed it's stance at all. It's always been a worst case scenario but nobody knew it, as nobody took the time to read it. Instead, opting to listen to dissenters who oppose any & everything.

The are NOT aiming for a population of 6.9 million as the bin liner proclaimed so irresponsibly. The are planning infrastructure with a worst case scenario of having the maximum ability of 6.9 million. During the economic blast over the last 15 years (with some glitches) the let immigration overrun the infrastructure in their erroneous quest for double digit GDP. They have paid dearly for that error in judgement. Now, they are looking to keep infrastructure ahead of the population by building extra capacity all during the next 17 to 20 years so at no time should the controlled immigration planned ever exceed the infrastructure's peak efficiency loading (which is usually around 15~20% less than the test failure loading capacity).

If their sustainable growth isn't necessary, e.g., the TFR comes up, thereby allowing a tapering off of immigration and foreign workers, better yet. Unfortunately, those who "are" actually reading the document (78 pages counting all the pictures) are only doing so to try to find holes to pick at without taking the whole document into context. While there are a lot of things in there that I don't agree with, it can easily be a initial roadmap that is dynamic in nature so as to allow for ebbs & surges in the economy and so forth.

The problem with a document of this sort (which, by it's very nature, is currently only for discussion purposes) is that there is not track record to see where others have followed the same sort of journey as there has never been anyplace like Singapore in the past and probably never will be again. Therefore, much to the local populace's dismay, everything has to be based on assumptions, ifs, ands, ors, or buts.

But don't diss it if you haven't studied it.
Last edited by sundaymorningstaple on Tue, 05 Feb 2013 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Latest News & Current Affairs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests