Skip to main content

Sustainable Singapore or Sustainable Population, does it matter under IPAT model?


During the parliament debate on Population White Paper, both the PAP government and WP used ‘sustainability’ to argue their cases.  One used it for Singapore (WP) and the other used it for Population (PAP).  Really, does it make any difference?    
The PAP government’s white paper wants to achieve “A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore”.   However, WP argues for “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”.   Which argument will give us a better living environment and quality of life?

A.Using population to achieve a dynamic Singapore or
B.  Using Singapore to achieve a dynamic population.  

IPAT equation
IPAT equation is commonly used for environment impact analysis and as we know the environment will affect the quality of life of Singapore core.
I = PAT is the lettering of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment. I = P × A × T 
In words:Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of P= Population, A= Affluence, T= Technology. This describes how our growing population, affluence, and technology contribute toward our environmental impact. The equation can aid in understanding some of the factors affecting human impacts on the environment.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT)
Singapore is an immigrant country and since independence in 1965, Singapore has increased its population as well as its economy rapidly. So much so that we have to think of sustainability in terms of many aspects: land, environment, population, economy, social development etc.

A country is made up of its people, especially its citizens. In the recent Parliament debate, the life quality of citizen core was the key points of argument.  

http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/011_IPAT_Equation/index.htm

However, Singapore’s case is unique as it is different from the IPAT equation for developed countries and looks more towards an IPAT model for developing countries.

IPAT for developed countries
To reduce the human impacts on environment, the model for developed countries will look like this:

P stable (population stable or reducing)
A down (high GNP, need to cut down consumption)   
T down (using technology more environmental friendly production)

A developed economy will try to make changes to reduce consumption and improved technology to reduce the environment impacts. A better environment or healthy environment will improve the quality of life.  This is why we talk about Swiss standard of living many years ago.

The challenges or options for change are A and T: to cut down ‘the consumption per person’ (due to affluence) and to bring down ‘the environmental damage per unit of consumption’ (help by technology).

IPAT for developing countries
To reduce the human impacts on environment, the developing countries will do the followings:

P up (e.g. population reduction through birth control, education, jobs for women)
A up (becoming affluence, GNP per capita increasing, consumptions up, to reduce consumption for less stress on environment)   
T down (using latest technology for production)

A developing country will try to make changes to reduce population and consumption; and improved technology used to reduce the environment impacts. A better environment or healthy environment will improve the quality of life (e.g. longer life span, better education and health care).  This is the early days of Singapore from 1965 to maybe 1980s.

The challenges or options for change are P, A and T. There are big population size and continuing growing; increasing affluence leading to higher ‘consumption per person’ and technology/ways to bring down ‘the environmental damage per unit of consumption’.

The case of Singapore
Singapore’s case is unique that we are a developed country but facing the challenges like a developing country, especially from the arguments of the government published (parliament endorsed) Population White Paper.

P Up (Singapore wants to increase population size by bringing in more immigrants)
A Up (emphasis on economic growth and to increase income further so consumption will go up)   

T down (in basically 2 approaches: using advanced and latest technology for manufacturing activities and little agricultural activities. Also Singapore is a service industry economy.  It is able to cut down environmental impacts or damage by improving technology in manufacturing and service industry as well as transferring some environmental damages to other countries, especially in primary and agricultural industries)  

Sustainable Population or Sustainable Singapore?
The PAP government white paper wants to have “A Sustainable Population for A Dynamic Singapore”.   They suggest:  

P up (increase population to a possible worst case scenario of 6.9 million)
A up (3-4% per year 2013-2020, 2-3% per year 2020-2030)
T down

However, the opposition Worker’ Party (WP) wants to have “A Dynamic Population for a Sustainable Singapore”. In this case,

P stable (cap at 5.9 million)  
A stable (slower growth rate, 2.5%-3.5% 2013-2020, 1.5%-2.5% 2020-2030)
T down

WP arguments for less population increased are: 
<We believe this rate can be achieved with productivity improvements at the same rate as that proposed in the White Paper, but with less population injections, if we can utilise more of our existing population. We could target to grow our resident workforce by 1% per year, by getting more foreign spouses, home-makers and seniors back to work. Second, our senior citizens may not be as much of a burden as the government makes out. >http://wp.sg/2013/02/a-dynamic-population-for-a-sustainable-singapore-reclaiming-back-singapore-mp-sylvia-lim/

Is Singapore a developed country?

In many ways, the PAP is denying our achievement and success.  It still considers Singapore as a developing country (and there are many advantages in the international world for being a developing country).

A developing country uses population (P) to grow economy, and increase consumption due to affluence and improved income (I).   

The PAP government is using the IPAT equation for developing countries to deny citizen core to have a better standard of living and quality of life.

It is not surprise that the low income workers do not have real income increase for more than 10 years. Despite affluence we still have housing, education, transport problems.  

After all, in the eyes of the PAP leaders, Singapore is still a developing country and the PAP wants to keep the status quo for as long as they are in power!
  

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...