Unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants

[Peqasus]

 

[Mockngbrd]

i thot they last year apologise liao? knn

[Richard_Peh]

Retired from politics still tok so much...but i am not surprised as he say he would 'rise from the grave' if singapore is in trouble

LOL...no need to wait for him to rise now singapore a lot of trouble.

[Scion]

Retired from politics still tok so much...but i am not surprised as he say he would 'rise from the grave' if singapore is in trouble

 

LKY's not retired from politics leh

he's still the MP for Tanjong Pagar

 

he retires from the cabinet only

[Scion]

actually he's not wrong in the immigrant issue

 

and certainly not wrong to quote Japan, who will lose 1/5 of its population in another 40 years

 

the main point is... is the govt accepting the correct immigrants?

 

is the govt so desperate that it accepts even farmers from China?

 

doesn't the govt has a plan to slowly accept the immigrants like during the 1990s?

instead of opening the floodgates from 2001 - 2010

[Nolicense]

Which dumb species mate when their survival is threatened?

 

i thought the logical thing is if the species survial is at stake it would breed like mad?

but then in nature, organisms breed when there is abundance..

[Latio2005A]

 

[Darthrevan]

why would he wants the lousy descendants of southern farmers to breed? importing is easier

[Coltplussport]

Suddenly thought of a good ways to have more babies in Singapore.

 

Allow men of higher income to have more wives, so can lay more offspring. So our PM can have hou gong jia li 3000 to help procreate.

 

 

[Tigerwoods]

Some more:

I have to disagree with this argument that the policy of 2 is enough.

When they say 2 is enough you all kuai kuai accept, when they say Pls increase you all don't follow instruction?

And that was still in the 80s they are asking for more babies.

Of course now most will say no space, no time, no money,etc

 

I'd say this is the problem is also caused by this:

The day they intro the women's charter and send the woman to work force started the decline in births.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Tigerwoods

[Nolicense]

actually he's not wrong in the immigrant issue

 

and certainly not wrong to quote Japan, who will lose 1/5 of its population in another 40 years

 

the main point is... is the govt accepting the correct immigrants?

 

is the govt so desperate that it accepts even farmers from China?

 

doesn't the govt has a plan to slowly accept the immigrants like during the 1990s?

instead of opening the floodgates from 2001 - 2010

 

what's the point of having a big and growing population again?

big and growing not always good like some of our neighbors.

for japan's case its not just shrinking 20%. its the dependency ratio that will shoot up.

mass import without integrating immigrants as long term stayers will excerbate the dependency ratio even worse.

this imports will displace the locals who have to leave. and later these imports themselves leave.

then we have a gapping hole in the population pyramid we cannot fill.

 

WTF!

[Nolicense]

I have to disagree with this argument that the policy of 2 is enough.

When they say 2 is enough you ask luau luau accept, when they say Pls increase you all don't follow instruction?

And that was still in the 80s they are asking for more babies.

Of course now most will say no space, no time, no money,etc

 

I'd say this is the problem is also caused by this:

The day they intro the women's charter and send the woman to work force started the decline in births.

 

i got the dunno what statistics department population interview..

they ask about what things dissuades men from marrying and WC was one of the items listed.

I selected highly agree WC discourages men from marrying.. anybody got interviewed can remember what all the blardy things they asked?

 

I only remember most of the questions already all the people in mcf already brought up before and since the 1980s..

still need to come and interview to ask the same questions.. really facepalm

[Tigerwoods]

what's the point of having a big and growing population again?

big and growing not always good like some of our neighbors.

for japan's case its not just shrinking 20%. its the dependency ratio that will shoot up.

mass import without integrating immigrants as long term stayers will excerbate the dependency ratio even worse.

this imports will displace the locals who have to leave. and later these imports themselves leave.

then we have a gapping hole in the population pyramid we cannot fill.

 

WTF!

Let's face it.we need the population to increase. Part of it is to create wealth, the other part is to create a base to support the aged.

However, the 90s we have a slow and steady stream of manageable immigrants.but by end of 2000s, they brought in floodgates because they want to achieve KPI to get extreme mirrion bonus.

As the country tasted extreme GDP growth, they cannot decline. Just like if in the 90s the economic growth is 3% and now 10%, if 3% become 2% still ok, but if 10% become 5% all hell break loose.

That is the price to pay when you get greedy.

Grow too big too fast is in itself a disaster waiting to happen.

The problem now is they can't slow down as any decline will hurt the population more than they can bear...

[Tom_kkh]

 

Edited February 4, 2012 by Tom_kkh

[KARTer]

 

[Nolicense]

Let's face it.we need the population to increase. Part of it is to create wealth, the other part is to create a base to support the aged.

However, the 90s we have a slow and steady stream of manageable immigrants.but by end of 2000s, they brought in floodgates because they want to achieve KPI to get extreme mirrion bonus.

As the country tasted extreme GDP growth, they cannot decline. Just like if in the 90s the economic growth is 3% and now 10%, if 3% become 2% still ok, but if 10% become 5% all hell break loose.

That is the price to pay when you get greedy.

Grow too big too fast is in itself a disaster waiting to happen.

The problem now is they can't slow down as any decline will hurt the population more than they can bear...

 

the population increase in order to create wealth part i have to disagree.

did real income increase? NO

create a lower dependency ratio? this is a magical figure like GDP. can see cannot touch. you see, why is there more aged table cleaners? we managed to get a lower dependency ratio right? there are more people in old age homes and highly stressed healthcare workers.. most of the imports are not to shore up this area but some is better than none. i digress..

 

what you are talking about is the addiction to GDP growth. like a drug. a torrent of money into the economy leads the gahmen to think everything can solve with money. can milk the local populace for more money.

when the money dries up, the populace also no money. gahmen already earmark money to spend like LTA build big HQ. HDB build big HQ and put up many LCD TV in the HDB lobby. you know how gahmen is like. if the alloted budget is not spent, next year budget is reduced.

 

they can slow down and stop being so spendthrift with tax money.

I see the probelm is the slowdown will hurt the gahmen more than they can bear.

land prices fall, SLA takings drop.

rent prices fall, Reits drop. SMEs happy becos of the cost is getting out of hand.

transport, utilities.. whatever you can think of.. its all gahmen owned. they have their profit they want to maintain.

without these extra population, they will not get this kind of super profits..

[Thaiyotakamli]

We can import baby mah... Two bird killed with a stone! U want baby can have more, moreover the baby is foreigner

[Jim]

Even if we go crazy making babies today, they wont join the workforce till at least 20 years later.

 

If baby shortage today is the problem, we will need immigrants in 20 years time, not today. Or we will need to import babies, as Thaiyotacamli says.

 

Obviously we are reaping the bitter harvest of "Stop at Two" over 20 years ago to need a flood of immigrants today, but they will not admit they sc rewed up twenty years ago, and nothing we can do today can change this problem sowed over 20 years ago, not to mention the whole "Stop at Two" campaign went so far to imply that having any child at all is a stupid thing to do. (I still recall growing up in the early 80s watching regular TV adverts that drilled in the tagline of roughly paraphrased "Have more fun while you are young, don't be so stupid to get married and have kids and end your happiness.")

 

What if new automation in 20 years time reduces the need for labour? We get blamed for overpopulating Singapore again?

 

That said, it is equally silly to blame the Women's Charter. You think you can get away with less grief if you get married and divorced in, say, the US? And under the Women's Charter, I know of at least one case where the court awarded alimony to a man from his ex-wife. Don't just knock the law because of the name, especially if you have not read through it. I know it is biased, but it is hardly a discouragement to get married. Divorce is horrible anywhere in the world.