• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

PAP say we need new Citizen for our survival.. but

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes, your point taken. But that's history. Excuse for population curb was our limited resources, young country, struggling economy, etc. On hindsight, LKY knew he goofed.

Today, they want waves of new citizens to keep them in power.

This is thought does not hold water. We were at 2.7M thereabouts in population when they began the open door policy. Even without the population control and birthrate is at 2.1 or so, we will not reach 6.9m or the 5.5m we have now

The point is if we never had those eugenics program in the past, we would have more local born Sinkies and no need for so many FTs. I think this point is obvious. Whether we need 6.9m is another matter. However nobody going to complain if 90% of total pop is made up of people like u and me. Rite?
 

Asterix

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
!@#$%^&*() = 10 characters :oIo:

With all due respect, Sim Ann is a stupid piece of shit who reads the Shit Times every day and believes everything that is written there. She should read the South China Morning Post instead:

Cramming in more people won't help Hong Kong to grow

Peter Kammerer says to increase our fertility rate and boost the economy, officials should focus on making the city a better place to raise a family

Hong Kong's government frets about an ageing population and low birth rate. Our leaders believe we need more people to ensure economic growth. The bigger the population, the higher the level of development, the thinking goes. Throw in a Family Planning Association TV advertisement that talks of families big enough to field a basketball team, and you get a feeling someone is out of touch with reality.

The non-profit association is government subsidised. Its ad, "The choice is yours", has been lambasted in social media since its launch last month. Showing a girl playing a cello, then two children having fun on a sofa, four singing together and lastly, five in basketball gear beside their parents, the mother pregnant, the overarching message is: "How many is enough?" The association complained last week that its ad had been misinterpreted; couples could choose to have as many children as they wanted, but they had to plan carefully.

I'm not buying the explanation. This is the same organisation that, in the 1970s, encouraged smaller families with its highly successful "Two is enough" campaign. With Hong Kong's fertility rate at 1.2 per couple as of June last year, far below the replenishment level of 2.1, there aren't many families with four, five or six kids. Hongkongers are not so ill-informed that they need to be reminded that the small flats and high cost of education limits family sizes. The Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre put it best last year, figuring the cost of raising a child up to university graduation at HK$5.5 million.

Governments shouldn't be in the business of determining family sizes; that is a matter for couples to decide. Offering subsidies and "baby bonuses", as some countries do to push up birth rates, is misguided. Making a city a good place to raise a family is the only responsible approach. When couples feel the time is right, they will have children; if not, they won't.

The latest Hong Kong research on the matter, from 2012, found a majority of couples wanted two or more children; 55.5 per cent wanted two, 7.6 per cent three and 1 per cent at least four. But fertility rates don't reflect that sentiment. Economic times have got tougher since then, with housing costs ever-higher, along with school fees. Such costs also keep away potential migrants.

A growing population does not mean economic growth. An economy will certainly expand in size the more people there are to contribute to it, but that does not equate with prosperity. It is the capabilities and skills of a population that matter; growth depends on innovation, knowledge and adaptability. China's economy may have surpassed Japan's both in size and GDP growth, but the average Japanese remains far wealthier than their Chinese counterpart.

Hong Kong's latest population policy review concluded there was a need to increase the quality and quantity "by optimising the demographic structure, slowing down the rate of population ageing as well as enhancing productivity and unleashing the potential labour force". That's saying try everything and anything. It's better to make Hong Kong a place where people want to live, work and raise a family.

There's a line of thought that in developed economies, high population density and low fertility rates go hand in hand. The more people who are crammed into a city and the less affordable its housing, the greater the competition for necessities such as education and jobs. In such circumstances, couples are not eager to have children, and outsiders are wary about living there. Until the mindset of Hong Kong's government changes, don't expect a dramatic turnaround in economic growth.

Peter Kammerer is a senior writer at the Post

http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight...cramming-more-people-wont-help-hong-kong-grow
 

Cerebral

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
The point is if we never had those eugenics program in the past, we would have more local born Sinkies and no need for so many FTs. I think this point is obvious. Whether we need 6.9m is another matter. However nobody going to complain if 90% of total pop is made up of people like u and me. Rite?

That is true. However, Eugenics is in our system. Our scholar leadership programme itself is a form of eugenics, which has been proven to not work.
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes, your point taken. But that's history. Excuse for population curb was our limited resources, young country, struggling economy, etc. On hindsight, LKY knew he goofed.

Today, they want waves of new citizens to keep them in power.

That is true. However, Eugenics is in our system. Our scholar leadership programme itself is a form of eugenics, which has been proven to not work.

U r rite. Haven't seen a scholar who made his/her mark in the corporate world (outside gahment circles)
 

enterprise2

Alfrescian
Loyal
Yes, your point taken. But that's history. Excuse for population curb was our limited resources, young country, struggling economy, etc. On hindsight, LKY knew he goofed.

Today, they want waves of new citizens to keep them in power.

Phillip Noel Yeo,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but he was unceremoniously dumped from A.Star for spending billions with no returns

I said non gahment ..Astar is still gahment
 
Top