Minister said indirectly 5.5m population in 2020
-
u better hope more people come to where u are staying now, and the place u will be staying.
Why?People will stay away a place where they cant survive---no jobs(legal or illegal),war in progress or going to war,struck by SARS or bird flu,high crimes rate,highly pullated,rising water level.....
So,after balancing all the pro and con of congested SG in 2020,i find it is better for SG to have 5.5 m population than 3.5 million in 2020!!
1.Now ,a minister indirectly project there is 5.5 million of population in SG in 2020.
14 Together with the rail lines now under construction, the new rail lines will double our network from today’s 138km to 278km in 2020. We expect our rail network to carry 3 times as many journeys, rising from today’s 1.4 million a day to 4.6 million in 2020.
15 Many more people will be served by the MRT, and they will be able to use it to get to many more places. The density of our rail network will increase by 60%, from 31 to 51 km per million population by 2020, comparable to cities like New York and London, and surpassing Hong Kong and Tokyo.
2.Why the ridership increase 200% when railways increase only 100%?
3.51 km per 1 million population mean there are 5.5 million in SG in 2020 lah!!
4.Look at the history than it is possible.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/people/hist/popn.html
The compound average annual growth rate for Total Population (Citizens,PR and foreigners)in the past 10 years is 2.4% a year,while 2.1 % in the past 5 year.Both up to 2007 mid years figures.
To achieve 5.5 million ,we need 1.7% compound average annual growth rate for Total Population (Citizens,PR and foreigners)a year run to 2020 from now.Well.I think more people come than leaving SG if there is no major problems happen locally,and/ or regionally.
5
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/keyind.html#noteX
Support Ratio
(Number of Residents Aged 15-64 Years
(support one)per Elderly* Resident)* Elderly refers to person aged 65 years and over
if u against allowing more FT join SG,pl take a good look of this chart.
Even SG open doors for many years,SG face a heavier burden of 17 people of Aged 15-64 Years to support one Elderly* Resident aged 65 years and over in 1970 .
In 2007 ,this figure drops to only 8.5 Aged 15-64 Years to support one aged resident.
6.Why SG need so many people?
FT come here to study and work,or accompany their family here.
With the economy grow,SG just need more people.It is damn simple.
8.one third of jobs held by FT (900,000)ie non citizens nor PR.Workforce of Citizens and PR is 1,830,000.http://www.mom.gov.sg/publish/momportal/en/press_room/press_releases/2008/20080131-employment.html7.u better pray 5.5 million than 3.5 million people stay in SG in 2020!!
-
Originally posted by noisylion:
Now with terrorist escape, Parangs choppings and dengue… etc etc on rise you dunt can be sure if SG is a nice place to stay.
U r not seeing the forrest son, Siggie wants more pple to come to where u are staying now because Siggies themselves cannot produce enuff population.
This taking in pple only a short-term solution… social problems caused… more girls in heartland, parang choppings involving foreigners, dengue are on rise.
National idendity also at stake less and less siggies who understand siggie.
This is because of short sighted population policies:
How come with top honour brains they still dunt can reverse trend? Even allow terrorist to escape?
Singapore's birth trend outlook remains dismal: sociologist
SINGAPORE: About 600 more babies were born last year.
Preliminary birth figures from the birth registry at Immigration and Checkpoints Authority put the number of babies born in 2006 at 38,232.
But a sociologist said the marginal increase in newborns would do little to lift Singapore's total fertility rate from its record low of 1.24 in 2004.
Besides aggressive immigration policies, bolder changes in family policies are needed to help Singapore replace its rapidly ageing and dwindling population.
Even with 600 more babies born in 2006 than the previous year, Singapore's total fertility rate, which has hovered around the all-time low of 1.24 for the last two years, is likely to remain one of the world's lowest.
The Total Fertility Rate is the lowest among Singapore Chinese women, just 1.08 babies per resident female in 2005.
To grow the Singapore population, the government ramped up its foreign talent programme last year to encourage talented people to migrate to Singapore.
Dr Angelique Chan, Sociologist, National University of Singapore, said: "I think dual citizenship is something we should consider in the Singapore context, particularly if we're interested in maintaining the numbers in the Singapore population."
But she added that immigration is only a short-term solution. And in the long run, Singapore needs to look at policies that enable families to grow and policies which help families to better balance work with family life.so far this not managed 2 be done despite years and millions spent!
Now ordinary Siggie pple pay price in increased parang chopping, terrorism escape, more prostitutions in heartland areas… etc etc.
Life is not just brick and bread son, look at the forrest. U weight the pros and cons… there’s only cons.
5.5 million pples not jsut numbers son, what kind of pple in 5.5million is mroe impt... look at the forrest son, look at the forrest.
At least in Oz if got too crowded or danger in urban area got places to expand to! SG only got HDB! Is this acceptable?
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I dunt know how old you are.2.Have u experienced the high unemployment rate and stay in the squatters area or slumps
in 1950 and 1960 and even 1970.
No food on the table.No $$ to pay school fee.
Using public toilets....
2.Look at Phillipines now.This is the consquences of uncontrolled family planning.
3.With low birth then SG can come to this stage.How we can come to this stage with 3 kids or above in each family in 1960 and 1970?
Even in 2008,most of the family find not enough $$,time ,energy to take care of 2 kids.
Not to mention 30 years ago.
Dunt mix the cause and effect.Dunt just follow the posting of CSJ.
-
The question is, why did they stop the policy so late? Why not earlier?
How many years of statistics are required to really see a trend?
Yet when they stopped the policy in 1987, why is it that edusave is granted only to the first, second and third child before 2004? They need 17 years to realise that edusave is also useful for those who have 4 children or more?
-
Originally posted by noisylion:
I dunts know how old you are, but I am prob as old as u
2. Have u experienced the problems of low birth rate and social problems it cause?
In 1980 and 1990 and even 2000s
Not enough singgies in workforce. Greying population
Eroding national idendity…
2. Look at Singapore now. This is the consequences of short-sighted family planning.
3. With proper bith rate SG no need to come to this stage. As socilogist point out birth rate will naturally fall no need to anyhow wack.
Top honour brains anyhow wack overdo population policy. Now laughing stock of the world in annual reports all stating problems of anyhow wack policy.
Other anyhow wack policies make it hard to raise even 2 kids, Siggie govt want more kids but despite millions spent and years to change dunt can work? Is this acceptable?
Dunt mix the cause and effect.Dunt just follow the posting of lionnoisy.
-
i can still remember the number;
2538 766.
