自我对话 2 Self Conversation
Yes, there is no way we can break the trend of low
fertility rate and have to accept more foreigners. But can we do it right this
time? For the first ‘Get rich quick’ scheme, we stop at two and the end result
is we cannot replace ourselves. To solve the problem, the second ‘Get rich
quick’ strategy kicks in and we now have a big inflow of foreigners.
Will we do it right the third time or just another
‘Get rich quick’ population policy again?
Have Singaporeans being consulted for the first and second ‘Get rich
quick’ population policies in the first place?
Now, the PAP government comes out a National
Conversation to seek your consensus for the third ‘Get rich quick’ population
policy. However, just before you begin
your conversation, the PAP government has already pre-warned you:
Singapore 'must avoid polarisation of politics': DPM TharmanMore than once last night, Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam stressed the need for Singapore to maintain a strong central core and avoid at all cost the polarisation of politics seen elsewhere.(ST 6 Sept 2012)
For the first and second ‘Get rich quick’ population
policies, the PAP did it without any consultation and hesitation as Singapore
was a one-party state. It is still a
one-party state in many ways and so for internal and external public relations,
they are using the soft approach in the name of National Conversation to get
support of the third ‘Get rich quick’ population policy.
As pointed out by Tharman, just because of “a strong central core”, we have the
first and second ‘Get rich quick’ population policies. Now when they hear more
objections (GE2011), the PAP government wants to “avoid at all cost the polarization of politics seen elsewhere.”
Were there any different views or opinions on the
first and second ‘Get rich quick’ population policies? Yes, certainly yes, especially in the
academic field. But has the main stream media ever reported or mentioned? Obviously,
the straight answer is a very weak political opposition. A weak political
alternative leads to many similar “Get rich quick’ policies being implemented
in Singapore.
Back to population discussion again, if we look at the
United Nations Population Division’s projection (see tables below) of Singapore
future population, besides accepting more foreigners, there is no other way we
can increase local population to make up the difference.
There is no mature or developed countries can achieve
the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 (see video below). We are now a first
world developed country, how can we break the trend? The only way to have the replacement rate of
2.1 is to import population from outside. However, there is a limit to growth
due to our physical, environment and social constraints.
The low fertility rate, well below replacement level
for developed country, will continue to be the case. This is a world trend. The world population is increasing currently
at a decreasing rate due to the overall reducing fertility rate in almost all
countries.
Video below from The Economist will provide a good
background understanding of the case.
Malay Singaporeans have lower fertility rate is also
understandable. African countries, India and Middle East are all experiencing
low fertility rate. The only difference
is the degree of decreasing. Some countries, some races have higher and some others
have lower decreasing fertility rate as their well-being, health care and
education improves. Malay population in this case is the last race to face the
lower fertility rate in Singapore.
In the article “Go forth and multiply a lot less”
by The Economist, we learn more about the falling fertility rate:
“Behind this is a staggering fertility decline. In the 1970s only 24 countries had fertility rates of 2.1 or less, all of them rich. Now there are over 70 such countries, and in every continent, including Africa. Between 1950 and 2000 the average fertility rate in developing countries fell by half from six to three—three fewer children in each family in just 50 years. Over the same period, Europe went from the peak of the baby boom to the depth of the baby bust and its fertility also fell by almost half, from 2.65 to 1.42—but that was a decline of only 1.23 children. The fall in developing countries now is closer to what happened in Europe during 19th- and early 20th-century industrialisation. But what took place in Britain over 130 years (1800-1930) took place in South Korea over just 20 (1965-85).”(http://www.economist.com/node/14743589)
A simple mathematical understanding of the tables
below will let us realize that we have to continue ‘importing’ foreigners.
There are 1.7 million non-Singapore residents and 3.8 million Singapore
residents (including PRs) in 2011.
Year
|
Total Population ('000)
|
Singapore Residents ('000)
|
2010 (Census)
|
5,076.7
|
3,771.7 (74%)
|
2011
|
5,183.7
|
3,789.3 (73%)
|
Source: Singapore Department of
Statistics
Since we cannot replace ourselves, the number of Singapore residents will
remain the same (not to forget PRs can leave as they wish and it is very hard
to know the number of PRs in Singapore) in future. The only increase has to come from outside
Singapore.
Assuming we are using UN projection (medium variant), by 2030, Singapore
will have near to 6 million (5.978 million) people. This means the
non-Singapore residents will be easily more than 2 million.
Of course, this is the situation of medium variant and it may be already
another ‘Get rich quick’ population policy. The high variant projection will give
Singapore 6.27 million people in 2030, a low variant projection 5.68 million
people in 2030.
This is just a projection 18 years from now!
Singapore
Population (thousands)
Medium variant
1950-2100
Population (thousands)
Medium variant
1950-2100
Year
|
Population
|
1950
|
1 022
|
1955
|
1 306
|
1960
|
1 634
|
1965
|
1 880
|
1970
|
2 074
|
1975
|
2 262
|
1980
|
2 415
|
1985
|
2 709
|
1990
|
3 017
|
1995
|
3 482
|
2000
|
3 919
|
2005
|
4 266
|
2010
|
5 086
|
2015
|
5 375
|
2020
|
5 597
|
2025
|
5 801
|
2030
|
5 978
|
2035
|
6 098
|
2040
|
6 145
|
2045
|
6 138
|
2050
|
6 106
|
2055
|
6 058
|
2060
|
6 006
|
2065
|
5 951
|
2070
|
5 887
|
2075
|
5 820
|
2080
|
5 758
|
2085
|
5 710
|
2090
|
5 681
|
2095
|
5 665
|
2100
|
5 659
|
Singapore
Population (thousands)
High variant
1950-2100
Population (thousands)
High variant
1950-2100
Year
|
Population
|
1950
|
1 022
|
1955
|
1 306
|
1960
|
1 634
|
1965
|
1 880
|
1970
|
2 074
|
1975
|
2 262
|
1980
|
2 415
|
1985
|
2 709
|
1990
|
3 017
|
1995
|
3 482
|
2000
|
3 919
|
2005
|
4 266
|
2010
|
5 086
|
2015
|
5 421
|
2020
|
5 714
|
2025
|
6 008
|
2030
|
6 276
|
2035
|
6 481
|
2040
|
6 612
|
2045
|
6 709
|
2050
|
6 811
|
2055
|
6 925
|
2060
|
7 048
|
2065
|
7 170
|
2070
|
7 284
|
2075
|
7 405
|
2080
|
7 556
|
2085
|
7 750
|
2090
|
7 985
|
2095
|
8 242
|
2100
|
8 506
|
Singapore
Population (thousands)
Low variant
1950-2100
Population (thousands)
Low variant
1950-2100
Year
|
Population
|
1950
|
1 022
|
1955
|
1 306
|
1960
|
1 634
|
1965
|
1 880
|
1970
|
2 074
|
1975
|
2 262
|
1980
|
2 415
|
1985
|
2 709
|
1990
|
3 017
|
1995
|
3 482
|
2000
|
3 919
|
2005
|
4 266
|
2010
|
5 086
|
2015
|
5 330
|
2020
|
5 480
|
2025
|
5 594
|
2030
|
5 681
|
2035
|
5 717
|
2040
|
5 684
|
2045
|
5 589
|
2050
|
5 450
|
2055
|
5 277
|
2060
|
5 092
|
2065
|
4 902
|
2070
|
4 708
|
2075
|
4 511
|
2080
|
4 311
|
2085
|
4 114
|
2090
|
3 929
|
2095
|
3 757
|
2100
|
3 604
|
Comments
Post a Comment