Fury over 6.9 million population target for Singapore

[ray245]

Singaporeans’ comments blasting the government came fast and furious after news broke Tuesday of its plan to allow for an increase in the city-state’s population to 6.9 million by 2030.

Coming amid an already rising wave of anti-foreigner sentiment following the influx of immigrants in recent years, a white paper released by the National Population and Talent Division on Tuesday said that Singaporeans were expected to make up little more than half or 55 per cent of the projected population.

Foreigners, who currently make up about two out of five people living in Singapore, have been blamed for the rising cost of living, stagnation of wages and crowding in public transport.

Singaporeans took it to online platforms to give voice to their rage over the government’s population plan. A Facebook group, Say No to an Overpopulated Singapore, was started on Monday and has since gotten 658 likes.

Hundreds of comments to articles regarding the population target were also overwhelmingly negative.

In one comment, Yahoo! reader Ah Lim said, “… Singapore is just a tiny island, it can never [sustain] such a huge population. Maintain a reasonable population and everyone can live in comfort. I do not wish to squeeze like hell wherever I go.”

Another reader Seasand123 said, "I would consider the mother of all policy blunders ever made by the ruling party is their open door policy and flooding this tiny nation with millions of foreigners."

Social activist and owner of unemployment support site Transitioning.org Gilbert Goh told Yahoo! Singapore that the population expansion plans shocked him.

“It will cause a lot of social tension between foreigners and Singaporeans. When there are so many people coming in, you have to get them jobs and housing, and these two things will affect Singaporeans a lot,” Goh said.

“We have to produce about half a million to 750,000 jobs to accommodate a population of about 6.9 million,” he added.

The former National Solidarity Party (NSP) member said he will be organising a protest at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park on 16 February.

“[People I spoke to] are disappointed with the government for not hearing them out. The majority of Singaporeans don’t want this expansion. The disappointment is that after the PAP’s loss in Punggol East, the government still went ahead to introduce unpopular policies,” Goh said.

Immigration policies were one of the hotly debated topics at the Punggol East by-election in early January.
Yeoh Lam Keong, adjunct senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and Vice President of the Economic Society of Singapore, told Yahoo! Singapore that the government should be trying harder to cap total population at 6 million or below by 2030 and around 6.5 million by 2050.

This will involve constraining workforce growth to 1 per cent between now and 2020 and around 0.5 per cent after that rather than the 1 to 2 per cent between now and 2020 and 1 per cent thereafter proposed in the government white paper.

Arguing that the positive economic benefits of the higher proposed growth in workforce do not outweigh the negative societal consequences that will come with the larger expansion of population size, Yeoh said economic history of other developed countries like the US and Northern Europe indicated that such higher workforce growth and related immigration is unnecessary for a vibrant economy.

He explained that the 0.5 to 1 per cent difference in extra annual workforce growth may be the difference between a liveable and cosmopolitan but reasonably indigenous and more egalitarian environment like Switzerland, and a horrendously crowded, unequal and highly foreign environment like Dubai.

"The problem I have with the white paper is that the tradeoffs considered between good jobs and economic dynamism, and population and workforce growth are overly mechanistic, economically simplistic and astonishingly sociologically and politically naive," Yeoh said.

With the proposed 6.9 million population by 2030, Yeoh added that Singapore might be moving towards Dubai, where there is difficult social tensions and little national soul.

"In short, it proposes trading the birthright of our basis for national identity and social cohesion for the dubious pottage of 0.5 to 1 per cent extra workforce growth on the narrow, unsubstantiated belief that it somehow makes for a more secure and vibrant economic future," he said.

In the same vein, Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) said the intention to raise the population to 7 million is "extremely worrying".

"There are no justifiable reasons for the PAP to raise the population by such a large number in such a short span of time. The population explosion will cause further economic, social and psychological stress for the people, as well as add to national security implications," said the SDP.

Other Singaporeans have expressed their frustration with humour, sharing memes made by popular satire website SGAG.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/fury-over-6-9- ... 03070.html


Singapore is hardly the densest city in the world, but I'm not sure whether supporting massive population growth simply to counter an ageing population and ensure economic growth is ideal.

With half of the people living in the country being foreigner, I'm not sure whether Singaporeans can still maintain their national identity by 2030. Surely there is a need find an alternative method to ensure good quality of life without relying on increasing the population of Singapore?

[Dominarch's Hope]

Either lots of babies or lots of immigrants. As long as you dont subsidize the living expenses in anyway, both are perfectly fine. Otherwise, you have people rushing in for the gravy train. And then multiplying. But babies take time and requires convincing women to have them or forcing them to. And the second one isnt going to happen in the modern era and for good reason.

[NoXion]

Having children is expensive, and Singapore doesn't seem like a particularly cheap place to live in the first place. So if living expenses for parents(-to-be) aren't subsidised, then how exactly do you expect people in Singapore to have children more than they already do?

Apparently getting on board the gravy train is only acceptable if you're a politician or CEO. Can't risk some poor person getting a bit of money now can we?

[Dominarch's Hope]

Its a matter of scale. Now, subsidizing internal growth isnt a bad idea, but throwing open the borders and letting the newcomers instantly use the same shit, bad idea.

Look, paying one politicians 100,000$ a year isnt nearly as expensive as paying 100 people basic living yearly wages.


Its why some of this could be happening. If everybody had their income in America xlimb with thekr productivity and the wage cap hadnt happened, then there would be shittons more general commerce going on. But thats also more resources consumed and more people generally not caring about 10mpgs or less.


Hmmm...yes, minimzing the resource consumption of the majority would be the most effective way of preserving said resources, and you couldnt get them to explicitly go along with it, but if they simply cant afford it and are convinced to be okay with it....yes, that makes sense.

[Stark]

Are you even aware you just conflated two ideas and then created a false dilemma?

Anyway, are you aware of how things like living space works in Singapore? Or am I just interrupting yet more complete dogshit?

[ray245]

Either lots of babies or lots of immigrants. As long as you dont subsidize the living expenses in anyway, both are perfectly fine. Otherwise, you have people rushing in for the gravy train. And then multiplying. But babies take time and requires convincing women to have them or forcing them to. And the second one isnt going to happen in the modern era and for good reason.

Why should we support increasing our population? Sure, there is economic downside if you population is ageing, but I do not think you can avoid the effects of an ageing population in the long run.

[Dominarch's Hope]

The main economic downside of an aging population is having to take care of them. Of course...you dont have to do that.

And your right, increasing your population isnt necessary. Some countries are just going to have to accept that. In fact, it shouldnt be that bad for nations already first world and espcecially those who have nukes to defend themselves.

I dont eally get this obsession of certain countries with trying to counteract this loss of population. As long as it doesnt affect ppp, it shouldnt matter too much that GDP is adversely affected. Its not like quality of life and safety is honestly compromised.

Say, how long would it take Germany to have nuclear weapons if say France gave the go ahead (IE We'll cover you bro" and Germany decided to go whole hog and do it.

And turn back on those nuclear power plants. Seriously, why?

[Irbis]

With half of the people living in the country being foreigner, I'm not sure whether Singaporeans can still maintain their national identity by 2030. Surely there is a need find an alternative method to ensure good quality of life without relying on increasing the population of Singapore?

National identity? What the fuck is that and why should it be considered before such unimportant things as, oh, good of Singapore's population as a whole?

Let's see, Israel, country with rather strong national identity, has 42% of immigrant population. I guess gradual increase to 45% in Singapore is somehow different and will doom it? Regardless of the fact both draw their relatively united ethnicities (Jewish, Chinese) from outside?

One hundred million people in the USA out of 310 million is foreign born or has foreign parents. Immigrants are now majority in some places of the USA - I guess it destroyed US "national identity" too? In Australia, 26.8% population is first generation immigrants, 20.1% is second generation - why that 47% didn't dooomed them yet?

Hell, there are 5 countries similar to Singapore with 70-90% of immigrants, I wonder whatever happened to their national culture? Oh? It's alive and well? Who would have guessed.

If there is one lesson to be learned from twentieth century history, it's the one that emotional nationalist bullshit sucks as basis of making decisions of any importance, but it's not like people try to learn from their mistakes. It's one thing if you want to discuss if immigrants should have skills or money in order to be successful in the society, but separating on nationalism is as bad as doing that on the race, IMHO.

[madd0ct0r]

singapore HAS a national identity? Fuck me, i thought it was a city attached to an airport.

[ray245]

With half of the people living in the country being foreigner, I'm not sure whether Singaporeans can still maintain their national identity by 2030. Surely there is a need find an alternative method to ensure good quality of life without relying on increasing the population of Singapore?

National identity? What the fuck is that and why should it be considered before such unimportant things as, oh, good of Singapore's population as a whole?

Because nearly half of the population would be foreigners who will only work in Singapore on a short term basis as opposed to immigrants who are aiming for citizenship?

[AniThyng]

Regardless of how one feels about national identity, is stuffing 6 million people into a place the size of Singapore really a good idea in the long run? The place has nil natural resources and I'm sure imports a substantial amount of its food and energy...

singapore HAS a national identity? Fuck me, i thought it was a city attached to an airport.

Well cities have their own distinct identities too. I guess you're joking, since there clearly is some sort of cultural differences that will clue you in that you are in the presence of a singaporean or in singapore. As opposed to you know, a malaysian in Kuala Lumpur.

But maybe we all look the same to foreigners

Let's see, Israel, country with rather strong national identity, has 42% of immigrant population. I guess gradual increase to 45% in Singapore is somehow different and will doom it? Regardless of the fact both draw their relatively united ethnicities (Jewish, Chinese) from outside?

It would be a mistake to assume that Chinese from China have all that much in common with Singaporeans of Chinese ethnicity, nor assume the same of Indians from India versus Indian Singaporeans. On what basis to you claim famaliarity with the situation?

[Dominarch's Hope]

With half of the people living in the country being foreigner, I'm not sure whether Singaporeans can still maintain their national identity by 2030. Surely there is a need find an alternative method to ensure good quality of life without relying on increasing the population of Singapore?

One hundred million people in the USA out of 310 million is foreign born or has foreign parents. Immigrants are now majority in some places of the USA - I guess it destroyed US "national identity" too? In Australia, 26.8% population is first generation immigrants, 20.1% is second generation - why that 47% didn't dooomed them yet?

Um, America is fairly exceptional in this area. Like, its the one area where "American Exceptionalism" is an actual arguement, instead of a cop-out. Of course, more words may be required.

The other thing is, America didnt just let anybody and everybody over, we were picky and choosy and the form of 'multiculturalism' was more forcing the new immigrants to give up heavy chunks of their language and culture until they primarily identified as Americans instead of say Irish or German. And it wasnt nice.

That isnt the way things go now, and even then, we have never just literally let half our population be immigrants in a decade or less.

And America has a fuckton of room. There are literally only a handful of nations even nearly as large(or bigger). Singapore.... not exactly.

[PainRack]

I don't think Irbis actually adequately recognise what is meant by the idea of loss of national identity, since it requires a context that Ray didn't protray. The actual projection is that 50% of the population will be non citizens, and for that, its masked further by the fact that a significant portion of those citizens are ALSO not of Singaporean birth or from the local culture(namely, Malaysia)(the argument ranges from 20% onwards,since no firm figures are given. However, the steady increase of 1 million in citizen population in the last decade was driven mostly by citizen immigration, so, ). Then GIVEN the fact that a considerable bulk of Singaporeans are also second generation immigrants..... so, even if we use Irbis context, that means that there are only 20% of a "core" identity or so.

To put it simply, its the idea of being displaced as both the elite and working masses that's creating that argument, since those coming in are both a source of competition for both higher paying jobs and the normal white collar jobs, creating a loose labour market that's making finding employment harder and stagnating wages. This even as we face cultural pressures due to changes in practices and language, and an even accelerating rate of change in Singapore society. I'm not going to say that this excuses xenophobia and etc, but unless one recognises that the upset is due to an ever accelerating rate of change and the fear behind it, one will simply treat the issue too blithely.


There's also a high element of...... racism/elitism involved in the White Paper which should surprise anyone who support it. To put it simply, its arguing that jobs polarisation in Singapore will escalate. Thus, we need to increase the population to ensure Singapore can have the labour force to keep companies working here, and the two tranche is that 2/3 of Singaporeans will work in PMETs job, aka, higher paying, while we import a large underclass to work the low wages, non routine jobs such as hospitality, nursing, construction and maintenance. (Laughably described as low skilled which promoted a backlash before it was amended two days ago.)
Indeed, one of the arguments being made is that in terms of a bad economy, citizens(defined as Permanent Residents and Citizens) will be spared the ax while foreigners are fired.


And to put it simply, while Singaporeans hasn't put that to voice, if one reads between the lines, they don't buy it. They don't believe that a vision where Singaporeans will be increasingly upslotted into an upper class, while foreigners will remain in a lower class or vanishing middle class. Instead, they believe that they will be the one's slotted into the ever shrinking middle class, and that the income disparity will only rise(since you know, world highest GINO and GROWING). They don't believe the arguments about infrastructure growing to meet the increasing population needs and they believe that instead of the wealth being spread, what will happen is an ever increasing.... well, to use the US term, gated community(although this term is not entirely applicable due to the intergration of schools and national service) will be isolated from the needs of the general populace.

[Dominarch's Hope]

Yeah, bringing in masses cheap labor is pretty much always bad. Especially in bad economic times. Its better for the majority to be paid better and have resources more focused.

Cheap Labor only honestly benefits the rich.

[PainRack]

I will like to post a bit more context about immigration diluting national culture if one may, even if I don't support that argument and its adherents.


The rapid rate of immigration started to happen during the nineties. Between 1990s to 2010, Singapore population grew from 3 million to 5.18-5.2 million, This population increase largely comprise of an increasing number of temporary workers and non citizens, an increase to over 1 million.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/po ... n2012b.pdf
For the growing citizens, the bulk of the rise is attributed solely to immigration, so, combining PR and citizens increase together will give us 1 million who aren't native born. That's 2 million who are direct immigrants in and as of itself, and the population projections is that citizens will be 47%(with a significant portion of this being newly inducted citizens).

Run the math and the Singaporean core of the pre 90s spin down to 2 million(taking into account death rates)..... And this drastically ignores Irbis comment about citizens with immigrant parents, which spin this down less.


So..... Seriously, when quoting statistics from other countries, understand the math. Its not 1/3 immigrants or 47%. Even Israel is a laughable comparison, because 70% of 76% is still 53% Israel Jews being Israel born(and ignores the Arab component). If we assume that all of the 2.9 million is Singapore born(which it wasn't, since we have a significant migrant community even before 1990 and this ignores the independence migrant flow), that's translates to 55% of Singaporeans now, and in this new plan, ignoring what death rates will do, yield 42% Singaporeans. Granted, Irbis and I will both agree that the locality of where you're born does not dictate your nationality, the context he provided is simply not comparable.

What the White Paper is suggesting is that we incorporate a large, foreign UNDERCLASS, with a sprinkling of 'elites' and 'talent" so as to boost our economy, to grow that underclass from a min of 14% now(using the workers context as opposed to the current foreigners making up 36% of our population) to a much larger proportion(with foreigners directly making up 45% and more). This isn't a "foreigners" as in filthy immigrants comment. This is a foreigners as in temporary worker, hire and fire them....... sure, you're going to get Westerners and you know, bankers, managers, a couple of scientists and engineers over...... but the context of the White Paper is arguing that we can magically shift Singaporeans into PMET positions, making them a new ruling class with a large underclass to serve their needs. Ignoring the mind bending reality of that assertion(right, extrapolate trend into infinity. BTW, how about that other trend about aging PMET not being able to get employed, and how our Singaporean population is getting older?)


Much of the unhappiness in the social context comes from cultural tensions. From the often moaned claims of "I can't actually order my food anymore because the coffeeshop aunty don't understand my order" to dilution of Singaporean food because Hainanese chicken rice really isn't Hainanese , to more serious claims of racial and religious harmony due to tensions from cooking of curry, malay void deck wedding and countless other tensions OUTSIDE of the fact that Christianity is securing more and more religious adherents, including a creationist and fundamentalist front amongst immigrants, giving its current western educated front even more heft behind the speartip in our politics........


I will also point out that our "cosmopolitan" vision has transformed itself into the FIRST gated community in Singapore, even more exclusive than the one that exists in District 10/Queen Astrid Park. Our "cosmopolitan" vision in reality has become ever and more elitist and well..... non cosmopolitan in reality. Diversity doesn't mean shit if it doesn't mean a melting pot.

[ray245]

To add to that, one of the biggest issue with foreign workers is they are essentially living in worker's dormitory, shut off from the rest of Singapore. Instead of making any major effort to integrate foreigners into local culture, the ruling party is essentially cultivating sub-cultures to exist in Singapore.

[PainRack]

To add to that, one of the biggest issue with foreign workers is they are essentially living in worker's dormitory, shut off from the rest of Singapore. Instead of making any major effort to integrate foreigners into local culture, the ruling party is essentially cultivating sub-cultures to exist in Singapore.

You're full of shit ray. Seriously. This is an issue?

[ray245]

To add to that, one of the biggest issue with foreign workers is they are essentially living in worker's dormitory, shut off from the rest of Singapore. Instead of making any major effort to integrate foreigners into local culture, the ruling party is essentially cultivating sub-cultures to exist in Singapore.

You're full of shit ray. Seriously. This is an issue?

Why not? When you essentially segregate a huge number of foreign workers from the rest of the nation, social tension would arise because those foreigners do not have the opportunity to understand local norms and customs.

[PainRack]

Why not? When you essentially segregate a huge number of foreign workers from the rest of the nation, social tension would arise because those foreigners do not have the opportunity to understand local norms and customs.

And the numbers involved? You do know that most workers dorms are for those in the construction industry, right? And the REAL issue regarding worker dorms is rather..... more noxious than "oh, construction workers aren't integrating into our culture". As for not intergrating and etc, you're making a lousy point because the MWC does attempt to intergrate them, the problems is that singapore society is reluctant to actually do so.

[ray245]

More update:

Singaporeans are raring to do something extraordinary: protest.

That might not seem like a big deal with the Arab Spring uprisings; Chinese journalists taking to the streets; and thousands of typically docile Japanese rallying against government policies. But tropical Singapore is the land of quiet brooding, where mass street demonstrations are as common as snowstorms.

What has people so riled up? Well, people. The impetus for the Feb. 16 march is a report that the tiny island’s population may rise by as much as 30 percent to 6.9 million by 2030. This seems to be the government’s answer to the question of how to sustain prosperity in one of the most crowded and expensive cities in the world.

The signs of overcrowding and urban stress are palpable to any visitor. Prices are surging, public services in a nation famed for nanny-state tendencies are slipping and some of the finest infrastructure anywhere is buckling under the strain. Locals blame the influx of immigrants, which Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s ruling party touts as one key to Singapore’s success in the years to come.
The city-state, with about half the area of New York City, has 3.3 million citizens and 2 million foreign residents, many of whom have contributed greatly to Singapore’s growth in finance and construction. Yet complaints that overseas workers deprive locals of jobs and drive up housing prices fill the air. Singapore is the third-most-expensive Asian city and ranks as the sixth most costly in the world, according to an Economist Intelligence Unit ranking of 131 cities.

Case Study
Singapore may well serve as a case study for what happens when leaders try to offset slowing economic growth with immigration and increased birth rates. There are lessons that Japan or Italy would do well to study. All of it is turning into a political liability for Lee, the son of Lee Kuan Yew, who is regarded as the father of modern Singapore.

The erosion in his party’s popularity is accelerating after the release Jan. 29 of a white paper that contained the 6.9 million figure, which it calls a projection, not a goal. Lee Hsien Loong has since said the number of people will be “significantly” lower than the report suggests. Will Singaporeans buy that?

“The new population policy is anti-Singaporean and it threatens our existence and livelihoods,” says Gilbert Goh, 51, an advocate for unemployed citizens and an organizer of a protest planned for this week.

Sadly, some of the rants one reads in the media and online veer toward xenophobia. If Singaporeans are so livid, they should stop supporting Lee’s party. After all, isn’t the government, by seeking to import more human capital, telling its own people that they lack the skills to compete? Anyone who doubts Singapore is serious only has to look at accelerating efforts to reclaim land from the sea for development, giving the city the room for population growth.

The real question, as public angst rises, is whether the opposition is justified. Former United Nations demographer Joseph Chamie says it is. To Chamie, the view that it’s almost always better to have more and more people is the human equivalent of what Bernard Madoff did with money, something he calls “Ponzi demography.”

The human-pyramid scheme works like this: Population growth, either through births or immigration, boosts demand for goods and services, increases borrowing, boosts tax revenue and adds to corporate profits. Everything seems grand and leaders take a bow. It’s a bubble, though, and it eventually bursts when population growth stalls. Incomes top out, high debt crushes consumption and investment, the need for public assistance rises, environmental degradation increases and angry people take to the streets.

Public Pays
As households are left to pick up the tab once Ponzi demography runs its course, government leaders issue dire warnings about economic decline if the flow of fresh talent stops. This will sound familiar to Singaporeans as Lee’s People’s Action Party sketches out a dystopian future without adding wealthy bankers and low-income workers to the nation’s ranks.

Singapore needs to find another way. The era of easy growth is over. Just as economies such as Japan and South Korea are seeing the limits of their export-led models, Singapore’s formula has run its course. Raising the productivity of its current workforce would be more potent for a developed, open economy looking to compete in a region dominated by the cheap labor and manufacturing of China and India. Singapore should focus as much energy on incentives for its existing residents to innovate and start new businesses as on adding more bodies.

Not only is Singapore toying with liberalized immigration, it’s also revving up a campaign to persuade Singaporeans to wed younger and reproduce. It is an odd push for Lee. Four decades ago, concern about overpopulation prompted his father to urge a delay in nuptials and to have smaller families. Today, amid a birthrate of about 1.3 children per woman, efforts to encourage bigger families border on the offensive. Just check a new website, “Hey Baby.”

Singapore’s addiction to population growth sends a simple and disconcerting message: The country has run out of ideas to increase economic vitality, aside from encouraging people to procreate or immigrate. Ponzi demography, indeed.
(William Pesek is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-1 ... h-too.html

[PainRack]

The problem with foreign press reporting is that ultimately, they can only look at the superficial details and report purely from there, extrapolating from their own opinions and experiences.
Normally, this wouldn't be a major problem, since you can always get some form of enlightenment by pursuing local media, but the local media in Singapore is even more heavily polarised than Fox News. (Both online and press)


The argument that this is a ponzi demography ignores the reasons for immigration and why the White Paper was comissioned, which is namely, a graying society and the impact this will have on our workforce, tax base as well as the increased burden this means on social services. The White Paper arguments about economic growth just doesn't tout the "increase population improve economy" line.....

Seriously.
The paper is here, well, the latest revisied version of it anyway.
http://202.157.171.46/whitepaper/downlo ... -paper.pdf

The argument that we should focus more on raising the productivity of its current workforce is....... stupid and just shows that the journalist didn't read the White Paper. Granted, one can certainly argue that the White Paper insane assumption that 2/3 of citizens will transit to PMET jobs and that the current upgrading/training/etc will work to ensure employment and etc is plain impossibly dumb, but the author rebuttal exists even further out in fantasy land.

Instead, what its argues is this. If there's no immigration, our workforce will shrink. It will be impossible to sustain a more than 2% productivity growth annually, especially as our economy matures. Therefore, our operating goal should be to prevent workforce shrinkage, aim for 1-2% growth while achieving 2% productivity growth which if we plug into Asia economy, should give us 4-5% GDP growth annually.

I'm.... look, the press article is just dumb and idiotic and I don't want to spend more of my time talking about it.


The real crux of the issue is over the faux promise of jobs and economic growth vs social cohesion and policies. The insane belief that population growth will not have a negative impact on our infrastructure ability to sustain our population is insane.

As it is now, with all the new acute and community hospital beds that will be completed by 2020, we will STILL experience a drop of 36 beds per 10,000 population to 26 beds per 10,000 population.

There are NO OTHER FIRST WORLD countries with a hospital infrastructure that undermanned. Malaysia sure, but its still technically a 3rd world country as considered by the UN. And China of course but China has a billion to care for.


The real crux of the matter regarding job stealing foreigners is actually WAGE DEPRESSION. And its not something unique. Look at Britain or the US. The sectors now most heavily affected by the restrictions on foreign workers and etc are the F&B sectors, hospitality and construction. Outside of construction, they also happen to be the areas where Singaporeans experience the most structural unemployment. Why? Because a Singaporean wage is much higher than a foreign one.
And its for damn good reason. There are NO minimum wages laws in Singapore and a job that pays 3 dollars per hour is NOT survivable outside of a partime basis.

To highlight an example, a cleaner is paid 500-800 dollars a month ....... and to get that upper range, they have to work dual shifts which means 12 hours or LONGER work...... And the only reason why its not longer/higher is because of employment laws by the Ministry of Manpower.

[ray245]

How much would the implementation of a minimum wage resolve the current problem?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

With half of the people living in the country being foreigner, I'm not sure whether Singaporeans can still maintain their national identity by 2030. Surely there is a need find an alternative method to ensure good quality of life without relying on increasing the population of Singapore?

National identity? What the fuck is that and why should it be considered before such unimportant things as, oh, good of Singapore's population as a whole?

Let's see, Israel, country with rather strong national identity, has 42% of immigrant population. I guess gradual increase to 45% in Singapore is somehow different and will doom it? Regardless of the fact both draw their relatively united ethnicities (Jewish, Chinese) from outside?

One hundred million people in the USA out of 310 million is foreign born or has foreign parents. Immigrants are now majority in some places of the USA - I guess it destroyed US "national identity" too? In Australia, 26.8% population is first generation immigrants, 20.1% is second generation - why that 47% didn't dooomed them yet?

Hell, there are 5 countries similar to Singapore with 70-90% of immigrants, I wonder whatever happened to their national culture? Oh? It's alive and well? Who would have guessed.

If there is one lesson to be learned from twentieth century history, it's the one that emotional nationalist bullshit sucks as basis of making decisions of any importance, but it's not like people try to learn from their mistakes. It's one thing if you want to discuss if immigrants should have skills or money in order to be successful in the society, but separating on nationalism is as bad as doing that on the race, IMHO.

Nationalist policies are only bad when white people do it. Don't tell me you didn't get the memo!

[PainRack]

How much would the implementation of a minimum wage resolve the current problem?

Which.... one????
A decent minimum wage however would at least be a much stronger tool to promote increase wealth sharing and make such menial jobs a means of advancement. Or at least surviability. Seriously. This is the rental rates in Singapore.
http://www.rentinsingapore.com/current_ ... rket_rates

Ever wonder who our foreign contract workers are staying 2-3 people to a single room? THAT"s why.

If there is one lesson to be learned from twentieth century history, it's the one that emotional nationalist bullshit sucks as basis of making decisions of any importance, but it's not like people try to learn from their mistakes. It's one thing if you want to discuss if immigrants should have skills or money in order to be successful in the society, but separating on nationalism is as bad as doing that on the race, IMHO.

Nationalist policies are only bad when white people do it. Don't tell me you didn't get the memo![/quote]
So, the inverse, that hiring a large undercaste of foreigners to service the rich is a better policy?
This is the actual quotes from the White Paper.

Foreign manpower can complement the Singaporean workforce in four key areas
1: Supporting our social and development needs such as construction and social services, as well as conservancy and maintenance work, so that Singaporeans can continue to enjoy a good quality of life while moderating the cost of such services;

2:Taking up lower-skilled jobs, as more Singaporeans upgrade into higher-skilled jobs;

3:Helping to kick-start new high value-added emerging sectors to provide Singaporeans with a diverse range of good jobs; and

4: Providing businesses the flexibility to capitalise on economic upswings, while buffering Singaporean workers from job losses in downturns.

At least the xenophobic crowd are concerned about the existing poor and unemployed.......

Sigh. God damn both your houses.Both 'sides' need to realise that there is a good reason why so many votes was wasted.

[PainRack]

And before anyone brings up Irbis point about Andorra, let's have a recap shall we?
Andorra has 85,082 people squeezed into 462 square kilometers of land.

We already have 5 MILLION people squeezed into 710 square kilometers of land. The proposed paper suggests having 6.9 people squeezed on to 730 square kilometers of land(unless they propose more radical land reclaimation efforts, which will strain diplomatic relations with Malaysia ). Monaco might be a more apt comparison sure, but Monaco doesn't have a "national" identity outside of wealthy tax haven play place.....And it has the damn social policies and infrastructure in place, but such.... artificial comparison of a 2 square kilometers of city with a city state is just.........


Again. Insipid comparisons are dumb.