Another 30% population jump in Singapore by 2030?

[Wd40]

The other day I read this article :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 32328.html

Now I get the context, after reading your post

[ProvenPracticalFlexible]

It seems that extreme right (mostly racist) populist political parties are currently getting somewhere between 10-20% support; if you read political disputes from internet you'd think that they have about 50%, so I seems that the extreme people are much more active in writing their opinions and debating than what their real share is, or they make a lot of noise and still don't bother to vote.

Easy guy, I think you might be confusing two things: anti-EU, versus 'racism'. After all, bumi Europeans are all one race.

I know there's a difference between anti-EU and anti-immigrant racist parties (sometimes though they are mixed up quite badly; an anti-EU party has it's racist wing). The anti-EU is probably close to that 50% in actual support depending on country of course.

My intention wasn't really to start debating EU politics, but just highlight that there is usually a big difference between the loud internet debate and real world where people vote in actual political elections. In a same way that the loud student activists marching on streets do not necessarily represent the silent minority voting.

[x9200]

It would mean that say a Burmese family of seven (two parents, five children) could enter Singapore by any means and declare themselves homeless. The SGn state would them be obliged by law to provide them with a probably 5+ bedroom home (depending on the childrens' ages), and to pay benefits to support the entire family at a baseline level + healthcare + education, and so on. This is pretty much guaranteed for life.

Do you still wonder why poor families will risk their lives making this journey?

Similarly do you wonder why a middle-class SGn family getting by with a son who has just got his first career job and is thinking of saving hard and getting together the deposit on his first home in perhaps five years time might feel: His long-term dream, being handed on a plate to 'illegals', and he's the one paying for it?


p.s. I won't go into what such immigrants might do during all their job-less waking hours, like begging on the streets, drug-dealing, prostitution and so on, as that is for another discussion.

If you are from Western Europe, you are sadly very well used to them. [Google/Image search on 'Romanian beggar *' where * is the name of any wealthy city in Europe and you will see what I mean.

There are pretty strong similarities between Europe and Singapore when it comes to the root of the problems. In both of the cases there are some objective reasons for the anger and some superficial, not really backed up by anything.
First one is what you mentioned - the abuse of the social system. This is taken to the extremes in more wealthy countries in EU as the whole EU structure is very much socialistic and assumes there are many people in need of unconditional protection (at least this is how I see it). No such problems in Singapore but the abuse on a different ground is there (as we all know it) and surely it contributes to the anti foreigner sentiments.
The second reason is practically the same. There is a group of people, skilled workers that both EU and Singapore desperately need. They positively contribute to the economies and they are none or minimal competitors to the local employment markets but by their sheer presence in the public space they get people triggered.

For the beggars, they are everywhere. There are and were also in the East European countries before joining EU. Probably some of them migrated West after the borders were opened but still many around.

[zzm9980]

The other day I read this article :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 32328.html

Now I get the context, after reading your post

I like their tourist ad campaign.

[zzm9980]

WP's proposal is to freeze all foreign labor immigration until 2020?

http://www.singapolitics.sg/news/iswara ... -and-risky

It'll get them votes, at least.

[Mi Amigo]

There's something weird going on when you have the governing party's own deputy party whip effectively saying that his own government have got things wrong:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/stop-the-growt ... 46723.html

Damage limitation perhaps?

[earthfriendly]

Like today there was a comment where MP proposed that youth PRs should do NS. But hey isn't that already the case mostly (if you get your PR at the age that you'd go to NS, it is most likely 2nd generation PR and not your own merit, and 2nd Gen PRs are already liable for NS)? Is it that MPs don't know this or the Singaporeans don't know it and MPs try to get popularity points in proposing something people would like to hear that is actually already in place.

Singh in the above article made many good points. He mentioned this. Not sure the main reason for the 70 % not doing NS?

" In an example of the latter, he said only around 30 per cent of all boys of PRs do national service."


The harder the govt push their (unpopular) agenda on the people, the harder the people will push back. Human nature.

[ProvenPracticalFlexible]

Like today there was a comment where MP proposed that youth PRs should do NS. But hey isn't that already the case mostly (if you get your PR at the age that you'd go to NS, it is most likely 2nd generation PR and not your own merit, and 2nd Gen PRs are already liable for NS)? Is it that MPs don't know this or the Singaporeans don't know it and MPs try to get popularity points in proposing something people would like to hear that is actually already in place.

Singh in the above article made many good points. He mentioned this. Not sure the main reason for the 70 % not doing NS?

" In an example of the latter, he said only around 30 per cent of all boys of PRs do national service."


The harder the govt push their (unpopular) agenda on the people, the harder the people will push back. Human nature.

No idea where he gets his numbers from, but got no reason to believe he wouldn't have access to better data than we here So if that number stands correct. I'd guess it tells us that 70% of sons of PR are not PR, but staying on student pass, LTVP etc. So what he misses to say I assume is that he'd like to make it mandatory for the PRs children to be PRs too.

So the fix is ICA to change policy, if you don't apply for your children to the main application would be automatically refused.

If it is really PRs who don't do NS, you'd expect they can easily stop that by cancelling the PR after that.

Other proposals to fix this (free of charge consulting from me ):
- Reduced income tax or property tax for rest of your life for people who have done their NS (or at least similar than the one that Singaporean mothers get for delivering babies)
- Free university/polytechnic fees for all citizens if they make it in (separates PRs and SCs and gives an incentive to pick up citizenship if you are staying here)

[sundaymorningstaple]

PPF, have a read in the Strictly Speaking forum to get just a vague idea of the numbers of PR who avoid having their sons do NS. (It's not just the Singaporean citizens who pull this crap). It can be done easily enough, but the slightest misstep can be costly over the long term. Especially for the son who unknowingly gets caught up in the parents well-meaning but short-sighted actions while he was still a kid. I'm inclined to agree with the 70% figure.

[ProvenPracticalFlexible]

As said I'm not denying that number, though some information what exactly makes up that figure is still missing there. Maybe he was misquoted in the newspaper article earlier saying young PRs not doing NS which is quite different than sons of PRs.

The fix for that though shouldn't be that hard. All in the hands of ICA, by not renewing REPs for people who have non-PR sons hanging around in Singapore.

And the other claim that "Singapore already has too many PRs and are enjoying full citizen privileges without the citizen’s responsibilities" sounds weird too as PRs don't enjoy full citizenship privileges. Some of them of course, but less and less every year. It might get popularity points from the voters, but would be nice if at least the people who supposed to make the laws and policies would know them. Or maybe it's misquote again.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I'm in full agreement on the "if PR don't make their children PRs then don't renew their REPs" But then again, I'm know to be against all PR abusers. I'd love to see that ability removed or if someone applies for PR without the whole family on the application, automatically rejected.

[Wd40]

There is also the other angle, where lots of people are trying to apply for PR for their male children but are getting rejected. So we don't know for sure what's going on in there.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Possibly, from a demographic POV, the percentages may already be too high? Hard to say. Most of us are flying blind with what it going on in Parliament at the moment.

[Wd40]

Talking of the parliament, I happened to be at home today in the afternoon so watched the whole speech by PM and DPM live on CNA. Very compelling indeed, but don't know how Singaporeans are going to take it.

[Wd40]

I noticed one very new thing in the PM's speech. The word PR or permanent residents was not used even once. He kept talking about Singaporeans and new citizens and non residents. That's a very interesting shift to me.

I don't know what it exactly means but my take is PRs will get lesser and lesser privileges and will become very close to EP holders in terms of benefits in the future and they would want them to convert to citizens ASAP.