Skip to main content

‘Get rich quick’ Population Policy - the third time!



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
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
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
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

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...

对话一定要有共识吗?还是求取多元性来丰富自我?

全国对话喊到现在还一直高喊全国要有共识,尤其是全国对话的结果就是要寻求新加坡人的共识。不然,行动党就会说,我国的政治将会出现分裂,新加坡就变成一个不团结的国家。 全国对话一定要取得共识吗?文明对话的目的难道就是为了取得全国共识吗?如果是共识,那就一定有取舍。是不是说强势的人就领头共识,而落势的就落得一无所有。这不又走回老路,一条行动党独大的旧政治框框吗?看来,行动党对于过去,仍然依依不舍,行动党的共识,就是国家的共识,新加坡人的共识。 对话是要加深双方的了解,尊敬并且互相学习,吸取对方的优点,填补自己的缺点。这就是多元性的好处。然而全国对话的结果,如果只是强求共识,而忽略多元性和不同的意见,甚至否定他人的意见,那么,这个共识,是否具建设性,破坏性,还是分裂性,那就很难说了。 行动党似乎忘记了多元性。文明的对话并不是要把自己的 意见,信仰和理念强加给对方。即使这些意见,信仰和理念都是好的,善的。但是,对方未必会欣赏,未必会接受。因此,对话的结果应该是吸取对方的意见,改进自己的治国方针,然后,交给人民去决定,而这个决定也不过是大多数人的共识,而不可能是全国人民百分百的共识。 (乐观的看,行动党的全国对话,也不过是改进自己的治国方针,通过自己的小圈圈,自我讨论,研究,更新和改良行动党的政治策略,然后,在下一次大选时,拿出来让选民决定。因此,所谓的共识,在全国人民还没有决定前,仍然不是全国大多数人的共识。很可惜,行动党原本应该通过全国对话这个平台,吸收更多对手的意见,不同的观点,将它们纳入自己的政治策略中,然后在大选中让选民选择这个纳入反对意见的新政纲。可惜的是,行动党没有这个雅量,也或许根本看不起反对的意见。因此,它只能企图通过全国对话,硬要说这是全国共识。所以,充其量这只能说是行动党小圈圈的改良版政治策略,绝对不能说是全国共识。) ‘己所不欲,忽施于人’我们不喜欢的,不要强加他人身上。同样的,我们喜欢的,也不可以强加于他人身上。例如,有些人不喜欢吃有些食物,我们却很喜欢吃这类食物,但是,我们要尊重个人的喜好,不要强迫他人接受我们的建议。了解了这点,下一回提供食物时,就会通过多些选择,而不是只提供自己喜欢的食物。这点一般新加坡人都有这个敏感度,我们会了解马来族的要求,尽量避免他们敏感的食物。 为何行动党过去能够了解国人...