Are you ready for 7 million people on tiny Singapore?
-
Strparent:
concern2,
Ya lor, It is not like Singapore is soo big with soooo many problems that they can't handle other jobs at the same time, right? Some more most MPs and Ministers have strong grassroot support, they don't really have to hands-on at Town Council matters what, it shows they are good delegators ... they can spend their time with more worthy jobs forming policies that help make Singapore a better place to live in with GREATER impact, and planning 20 years in advance even though they do not have 20/20 eyesight or foresight - to see beyond ordinary citizens like us cannot see ....... :siam:concern2:
[quote=\"3Boys\"]
And the suggestion is.....? All elected to parliament quit their day jobs? then how will they know what a working man's or businessman's perspective is?
the problem is some of those older generation MPs sit on so many boards that they also dont know whats going on. just 'bak ji le mia' (mark your name) to enhance company reputation, and can soemtimes get nice year end directors' fee. I know of some directors see once a year, can get 6 figure sum de last time. Gold mine, sibei song. :drool: :drool: [/quote]Ahhhh......so productive hor, name only also can make money just like that...
Strparent:
Explains their absenteeism record in parliament? :evil:nobody ask them to quit their day jobs ( like the WP guys so as to focus on ppl ), but they moonlight so many part time jobs until morn morn cha cha .
-
concern2:
Ya lor, It is not like Singapore is soo big with soooo many problems that they can't handle other jobs at the same time, right? Some more most MPs and Ministers have strong grassroot support, they don't really have to hands-on at Town Council matters what, it shows they are good delegators ... they can spend their time with more worthy jobs forming policies that help make Singapore a better place to live in with GREATER impact, and planning 20 years in advance even though they do not have 20/20 eyesight or foresight - to see beyond ordinary citizens like us cannot see ....... :siam:[/quote]I have no problems with MPs holding down full time jobs, running their own businesses or being on boards. It's the same the whole world over.
And the suggestion is.....? All elected to parliament quit their day jobs? then how will they know what a working man's or businessman's perspective is?3Boys:
[quote=\"limlim\"]
Actually, many MPs are multi-taskers with numerous directorship or interest in various business is it not?
I would have an issue perhaps if MINISTERS, who are supposed to be full time, are on boards of PRIVATE companies (of course, they may be on stat boards and such).
Are sitting ministers allowed to sit on boards of private companies?
Frankly, this class war thingy is getting tiresome. Do we not push our kids to excel, and to excel does it not mean to be able to do things better?
I just don't understand the hang ups
-
limlim:
Or do honorable things....... :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:concern2:
Ya lor, It is not like Singapore is soo big with soooo many problems that they can't handle other jobs at the same time, right? Some more most MPs and Ministers have strong grassroot support, they don't really have to hands-on at Town Council matters what, it shows they are good delegators ... they can spend their time with more worthy jobs forming policies that help make Singapore a better place to live in with GREATER impact, and planning 20 years in advance even though they do not have 20/20 eyesight or foresight - to see beyond ordinary citizens like us cannot see ....... :siam:
Frankly speaking, I wanted to say that but couldn't find how it could fit in - literally! Ok lah, I suppose \"honorable thing\" would be most suitable here.... :rotflmao:
-
pirate:
Yah. I very the long winded one.
:scratchhead: Don't exactly get your point. You mean other countries are doing it, and we are just doing the same thing, if not, what our garmen should do if they don't do the same?concern2:
[quote=\"pirate\"]The question we should be asking is not why our policy makers are embarking on what appears to be a population ponzi scheme for the sake of economic growth.
The question we should be asking is what will we have our policy makers do in the face of other people (ie. our neighbours and the other economic powers whether international or regional) embarking on what appears to be a population ponzi scheme for the sake of their economic growth. If not this, then what? Sorri, that's my \"layman's understanding\" of what you mean..[/quote]Hm...which other countries are using this model? Are we carrying this to the extreme? I mean - we have only that much land...and if bringing in more means having to build even more infrastructure to accommodate, aren't we back to square one? I can't see any improvement in people's standard of living..
-
Anyway, here is the view from the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) on the issue. I know pro-business opinions gains no traction in this forum, so FWIW.
Singapore, Thursday, 31 January 2013 - 1. The Singapore Business Federation acknowledges the importance of the Population White Paper's projections for the medium to long-term growth of Singapore. A shrinking and ageing workforce amidst the backdrop of a stagnant Total Fertility Rate (TRF) will have serious implications for businesses and the economy. It is vital that Singapore achieves consensus and lends support for these important issues.
2.\tDespite total population projected to reach 6.9 million by 2030, Singapore businesses will be impacted by slower workforce growth from 2013 to 2020 at only half of the average growth rate compared to the last three decades. From 2020 to 2030, workforce growth is projected to decrease even further. This will constrain businesses and limit growth. It will have devastating consequences for many companies.
3.\tAs the number of Singaporeans in Professional, Managerial, Executive and Technical (PMET) jobs increase, there will be a shortage of local non-PMETs. Many industries cannot be manned by mainly PMETs. For example, retail, food and beverages outlets and hotels will continue to need a large number of lower skilled workers. Currently, these sectors already cannot attract enough locals. In the future, the situation will be worse. Those establishments which cannot adjust will close. Jobs will be lost. Those which can survive will face tight labour supply and high labour costs. Singaporeans should be prepared for higher costs of such domestic services and lower service quality levels.
4.\tA moderate GDP growth of 3% - 4% from 2013 to 2020 hinges on a productivity growth of 2% to 3%. There is risk that this growth will not be achievable if productivity cannot be improved from current level. Consequently, there is danger of Singapore descending into a period of weak anemic growth. This will have repercussions on wages, employment and Singapore's attractiveness as an international business destination. Singapore's appeal as an efficient and attractive tourist destination will also be compromised. In such a scenario, we can lose our confidence as a dynamic city.
5.\tMr. Ho Meng Kit, CEO of SBF said: \"The reduction in workforce growth has very serious consequences for businesses. Some Singaporeans do not realise its impact but are seized with the prospect of an over-crowded island with 6.9 million people. We must explain to Singaporeans that many businesses will be in jeopardy if they cannot adjust to this demographic tsunami that will hit us. If businesses go under, jobs will be lost, Singaporeans will be affected. If businesses cannot raise productivity and sustain profits, they cannot afford to pay Singaporeans higher salaries. The population projections in the Population White Paper are already tough for companies. It is unthinkable if Singaporeans choose to further limit immigration and the number of foreign workers. This will damage our competitiveness and Singapore will lose its shine. We do not want to see our children working overseas because there are no more good opportunities here.\"
6.\tProviding an SME perspective, Mr. Lawrence Leow, Chairman of the SBF-led SME Committee said: \"The population paper has painted the harsh realities of Singapore's population statistics and their implications. Unfortunately it is the SMEs that will be hardest hit. SMEs currently employ some 70% of the local workforce. They are more than economic contributors as their sustained presence has impact on the lives of Singaporeans. Many SMEs operate as subcontractors or across labour-dependent service sectors. The shift towards 2/3 of local workforce to PMET jobs and only 1/3 to non-PMET jobs is unimaginable for many SMEs' business model. A lot of SMEs whose operations cannot be moved offshore will be rendered out of business. This in turn has an even wider implication as many multinational corporations (MNCs) here rely on SMEs for services and as part of their supply chain. The net effect is that many more jobs could be lost. We urge Government to delay further tightening of foreign workers restrictions until there are clear evidence of small businesses succeeding in business restructuring and productivity increment.\"
The part in bold is what concerns me. I hope we don't become the new exporters of maids and manual labourers. -
Govt announces land use plan to sustain 6.9m population
(source: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/govt-announces-land-plan-sustain-6-9m-population-052723558--sector.html)
To support this ambitious plan, the government will look to reclaim additional land, develop some reserve land, ramp up new developments and recycle land such as old industrial estates and some golf courses to achieve higher land productivity.
By 2030, more than half of Singapore (58 percent) will be allocated for housing as well as other requirements, including industry and commerce and green spaces.
Specifically, 13,000 ha or 17 percent of land will be set aside for the housing needs of Singaporeans.
Beyond 2030, more land will be reclaimed to support the larger population. Singaporeans can also look forward to the development of new growth corridors in the north (from Woodlands to Punggol) and in the south (from Tanjong Pagar to Pasir Panjang Terminal).
Meanwhile, the government will also look at using technology and implement solutions to further optimise land use. -
3Boys:
That particular one is a bit strange. If businesses go under, jobs will no doubt be lost. But there are fewer people around to be doing those jobs in the first place. Those particular businesses go under because they are unable to get people to fill those jobs, remember?Anyway, here is the view from the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) on the issue. I know pro-business opinions gains no traction in this forum, so FWIW.
5.\tMr. Ho Meng Kit, CEO of SBF said: \"The reduction in workforce growth has very serious consequences for businesses. Some Singaporeans do not realise its impact but are seized with the prospect of an over-crowded island with 6.9 million people. We must explain to Singaporeans that many businesses will be in jeopardy if they cannot adjust to this demographic tsunami that will hit us. If businesses go under, jobs will be lost, Singaporeans will be affected. If businesses cannot raise productivity and sustain profits, they cannot afford to pay Singaporeans higher salaries. The population projections in the Population White Paper are already tough for companies. It is unthinkable if Singaporeans choose to further limit immigration and the number of foreign workers. This will damage our competitiveness and Singapore will lose its shine. We do not want to see our children working overseas because there are no more good opportunities here.\"
The part in bold is what concerns me. I hope we don't become the new exporters of maids and manual labourers.
So, it does not follow that there will be \"no more good opportunities here\". That depends on what businesses go under and what kinds of jobs are lost as a result. -
As our children become better educated, they will be able to compete globally in good jobs overseas.
-
pirate:
It's not just single companies or single industries. The economy is an ecosystem, if you take out enough key components, the whole thing can just collapse on itself.
That particular one is a bit strange. If businesses go under, jobs will no doubt be lost. But there are fewer people around to be doing those jobs in the first place. Those particular businesses go under because they are unable to get people to fill those jobs, remember?3Boys:
Anyway, here is the view from the Singapore Business Federation (SBF) on the issue. I know pro-business opinions gains no traction in this forum, so FWIW.
5.\tMr. Ho Meng Kit, CEO of SBF said: \"The reduction in workforce growth has very serious consequences for businesses. Some Singaporeans do not realise its impact but are seized with the prospect of an over-crowded island with 6.9 million people. We must explain to Singaporeans that many businesses will be in jeopardy if they cannot adjust to this demographic tsunami that will hit us. If businesses go under, jobs will be lost, Singaporeans will be affected. If businesses cannot raise productivity and sustain profits, they cannot afford to pay Singaporeans higher salaries. The population projections in the Population White Paper are already tough for companies. It is unthinkable if Singaporeans choose to further limit immigration and the number of foreign workers. This will damage our competitiveness and Singapore will lose its shine. We do not want to see our children working overseas because there are no more good opportunities here.\"
The part in bold is what concerns me. I hope we don't become the new exporters of maids and manual labourers.
So, it does not follow that there will be \"no more good opportunities here\". That depends on what businesses go under and what kinds of jobs are lost as a result.
I gave the example previously on another thread about Rolls Royce aerospace, the companies that support it, and that it gives business to, and then the other companies that rely on those satellite companies.
If F&B goes out the window, then how do we deal with tourism? If tourism goes out the window, then how about Changi Airport and SIA? If SIA goes out the window, then what do we do about businesses set up here? You think all your high-end high-value jobs will survive in an unbalanced economy?
The vibrancy of the economy is an interplay of a whole lot of industries, relying on and supporting each other. -
deleted
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better š
Register Login