PAP & WP Population Papers - are we where we want to be.

[scroobal]

June 2012 official pop - 5.31m
PAP projected range - 6.5 to 6.9m ( 1.19m to 1.59m increase in 17 years)
WP projected range - 5.6 to 5.8m ( 0.29m to 0.49m increase in 17 years)

PAP Approach - GDP must keep pace and grow, fertility programmes have failed despite numerous attempts since 1987, immigration is the answer, manage it by integration programmes and ramped up infrastructure building

WP Approach ( wwabbit pl check for accuracy) - agree on GDP, increase TFR by fertility programmes, improved quality of life will increase fertility, increase local force pariticipation by the elderly and locals, labour laws to change, intergration policy not be managed by politcised PA but non-partisan approach.

Couple of observations ;
- is 5.31m acceptable in the first place
- should both parties go back to the drawing boards
- should full or near full employment be the first criteria rather than GDP ( which does not reflect equitable distribution of the economic pie
- should PAP explain why they are unable to increase local labour force participation
- should WP be clear on their proposed fertility programme and elderly participation programmes as their proposal hinges mainly on these 2.
- should WP explain what their approach to integration should be.
- should PAP explain why 82% of population are on 7% of land (public housing) while private housing with 18% of the people taking up another 7%. So who is sitting on a massive private holdings after clustered private housing such a condo are excluded.

 

[kukubird58]

hahaha.....kong simi langjiao????
simple way is to offer dual citizenship lah......
wait.....someone has been bullshitting about this for many years and getting away with it.....like TT Durai.
If scroobal is not an ah neh....i tok.

 

[ZombieFart]

is 5.31m acceptable in the first place

5.31m was not acceptable by many people

but now 6.9m pwp has made 5.31m acceptable

is this 借屍還魂?

 

[winnipegjets]

June 2012 official pop - 5.31m
PAP projected range - 6.5 to 6.9m ( 1.19m to 1.59m increase in 17 years)
WP projected range - 5.6 to 5.8m ( 0.29m to 0.49m increase in 17 years)

PAP Approach - GDP must keep pace and grow, fertility programmes have failed despite numerous attempts since 1987, immigration is the answer, manage it by integration programmes and ramped up infrastructure building

WP Approach ( wwabbit pl check for accuracy) - agree on GDP, increase TFR by fertility programmes, improved quality of life will increase fertility, increase local force pariticipation by the elderly and locals, labour laws to change, intergration policy not be managed by politcised PA but non-partisan approach.

Couple of observations ;
- is 5.31m acceptable in the first place
- should both parties go back to the drawing boards
- should full or near full employment be the first criteria rather than GDP ( which does not reflect equitable distribution of the economic pie
- should PAP explain why they are unable to increase local labour force participation
- should WP be clear on their proposed fertility programme and elderly participation programmes as their proposal hinges mainly on these 2.
- should WP explain what their approach to integration should be.
- should PAP explain why 82% of population are on 7% of land (public housing) while private housing with 18% of the people taking up another 7%. So who is sitting on a massive private holdings after clustered private housing such a condo are excluded.

It is not for the WP to spell out its plan in details. If the Opposition is provided funding like in other democracies, then to ask them to produce detail plan is reasonable. The government has millionaire ministers and all the resource of the bureaucrats to do their work and you expect the WP with resource of MP allowances to do same level of work as the government? By the way, the allowances of the MP are also used for constituency work. So, don't make unreasonable requests of the opposition MPs.

 

[Cosmos10]

On 4 Feb 2013, Sylvia Lim stated in Parliament that the number recommended by the WP was 5.9 million.

Source: www.channelnewsasia.com
"MP for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim said the government's proposals in the White Paper would dilute the country's national identity. The Workers' Party chairman argued that trade-offs should favour the well-being of Singaporeans and not GDP targets set out in the document. Instead, she suggested having 5.9 million by 2030, one million less people than the government's projections, in exchange for a reduction of 0.5 to 1 percent in the government's proposed GDP growth rate".


On 14 Feb 2012, the SDP launched the SDP's "Building A People: Sound Policies For A Secure Future" Population Proposal Paper.

On 22 Feb 2012, the WP released their own paper and reduced their recommended number to 5.6 - 5.8 million.

If I am not wrong, the WP's numbers are not consistent from 4 Feb to 22 Feb.

P.S. A gentle reminder to my WP brothers here who do not like the SDP, please do not zap me with red points. As far as I know, I am a very polite person, I do not yell and I am not rude. There is no reason to zap me just because I do not worship the WP like you. Lets be friends and lets learn to get along together agreeably on this tiny red dot and in Sam's forum, regardless of the party we support. Thanks

 

[Cosmos10]

Hi bro winnipegjets, you wrote:

"It is not for the WP to spell out its plan in details. If the Opposition is provided funding like in other democracies, then to ask them to produce detail plan is reasonable. The government has millionaire ministers and all the resource of the bureaucrats to do their work and you expect the WP with resource of MP allowances to do same level of work as the government? By the way, the allowances of the MP are also used for constituency work. So, don't make unreasonable requests of the opposition MPs".

The SDP team produced three *detailed* plans on 1) Healthcare, 2) Housing and 3) Population Papers.

The SDP Papers are totally NOT paid by the taxpayers. NOT a single cent of MP allowance at all.

Remember the old saying, "When there is will, there will be a way".

P.S. A gentle reminder to my WP brothers here who do not like the SDP, please do not zap me with red points. As far as I know, I am a very polite person, I do not yell and I am not rude. There is no reason to zap me just because I do not worship the WP like you. Lets be friends and lets learn to get along together agreeably on this tiny red dot and in Sam's forum, regardless of the party we support. Thanks

 

[Leongsam]

Singapore's population should be 1.75 million. That was what it was when I thought sinkieland was the best place on earth. I managed to reach 140kph down Orchard Road in my twin Webber Cooper S.

By the time it reached 2.5 million, I couldn't even find any fighting spiders no matter how hard I searched.

 

[enterprise2]

June 2012 official pop - 5.31m
PAP projected range - 6.5 to 6.9m ( 1.19m to 1.59m increase in 17 years)
WP projected range - 5.6 to 5.8m ( 0.29m to 0.49m increase in 17 years)

PAP Approach - GDP must keep pace and grow, fertility programmes have failed despite numerous attempts since 1987, immigration is the answer, manage it by integration programmes and ramped up infrastructure building

WP Approach ( wwabbit pl check for accuracy) - agree on GDP, increase TFR by fertility programmes, improved quality of life will increase fertility, increase local force pariticipation by the elderly and locals, labour laws to change, intergration policy not be managed by politcised PA but non-partisan approach.

Couple of observations ;
- is 5.31m acceptable in the first place
- should both parties go back to the drawing boards
- should full or near full employment be the first criteria rather than GDP ( which does not reflect equitable distribution of the economic pie
- should PAP explain why they are unable to increase local labour force participation
- should WP be clear on their proposed fertility programme and elderly participation programmes as their proposal hinges mainly on these 2.
- should WP explain what their approach to integration should be.
- should PAP explain why 82% of population are on 7% of land (public housing) while private housing with 18% of the people taking up another 7%. So who is sitting on a massive private holdings after clustered private housing such a condo are excluded.

WP proposal seem more natural and relies more on organic growth which is more palatable.

 

[scroobal]

As often mentioned in older circles - the first 25 yrs was brilliant, promising, hopefuk and it was a time when Singaporeans began to head Departments, major companies and world began to watch with interest. Malaysian Chinese were prepared to wait for 10 years for the citizenship after getting PR. Not anymore.

Singapore's population should be 1.75 million. That was what it was when I thought sinkieland was the best place on earth. I managed to reach 140kph down Orchard Road in my twin Webber Cooper S.

By the time it reached 2.5 million, I couldn't even find any fighting spiders no matter how hard I searched.

 

[scroobal]

The essence of WP approach is Singaporeans first. Something the PAP could not be bothered or have given up on. I like the way you applied the word " Organic". Very apt.

WP proposal seem more natural and relies more on organic growth which is more palatable.

 

[Satyr]

As often mentioned in older circles - the first 25 yrs was brilliant, promising, hopefuk and it was a time when Singaporeans began to head Departments, major companies and world began to watch with interest. Malaysian Chinese were prepared to wait for 10 years for the citizenship after getting PR. Not anymore.

As usual, everything gets killed by greed.

 

[SgParent]

On 4 Feb 2013, Sylvia Lim stated in Parliament that the number recommended by the WP was 5.9 million.

..............

On 14 Feb 2012, the SDP launched the SDP's "Building A People: Sound Policies For A Secure Future" Population Proposal Paper.

On 22 Feb 2012, the WP released their own paper and reduced their recommended number to 5.6 - 5.8 million.

If I am not wrong, the WP's numbers are not consistent from 4 Feb to 22 Feb.

Are you trying to say WP changed tune after SDP published its Paper? If so then you have an inflated imagination.

If SDP thinks so then it has an inflated sense of importance.

Go read up on the reasons behind 5.9M and the new 5.6-5.8M before you embarrass yourself further.

P.S. A gentle reminder to my WP brothers here who do not like the SDP, please do not zap me with red points. As far as I know, I am a very polite person, I do not yell and I am not rude. There is no reason to zap me just because I do not worship the WP like you. Lets be friends and lets learn to get along together agreeably on this tiny red dot and in Sam's forum, regardless of the party we support. Thanks

Polite? Maybe but you sure is full of hypocrisy, dishonesty and lack of basic human decency

I think you deserved to be zap not because of your support for SDP but for the above.

Just admit you are anti-WP.

 

[SgParent]

Hi bro winnipegjets, you wrote:

"It is not for the WP to spell out its plan in details. If the Opposition is provided funding like in other democracies, then to ask them to produce detail plan is reasonable. The government has millionaire ministers and all the resource of the bureaucrats to do their work and you expect the WP with resource of MP allowances to do same level of work as the government? By the way, the allowances of the MP are also used for constituency work. So, don't make unreasonable requests of the opposition MPs".

The SDP team produced three *detailed* plans on 1) Healthcare, 2) Housing and 3) Population Papers.

The SDP Papers are totally NOT paid by the taxpayers. NOT a single cent of MP allowance at all.

Remember the old saying, "When there is will, there will be a way".

Agree. WP should not and cannot use that as an excuse.

If it dun want to show its card then by all means dun.

But comparing WP to SDP is really embarrassingly stupid and embarrassingly lame.

One has to put up with fake 40% like yourself while looking into the interests of those that risked their own backyard to vote WP into Parliament and working on improving their engagement on the ground.

The other has always been The Invincible ONLINE Party, with no real commitment to real voters and no real ground work. It is expected to come up with papers after papers. So I think it is not really doing its job by coming up with only 3. No?

 

[enterprise2]

The essence of WP approach is Singaporeans first. Something the PAP could not be bothered or have given up on. I like the way you applied the word " Organic". Very apt.

Organic growth is used by often to describe companies growing under their steam and not artificially by mergers or acquisitions.

 

[Taxan]

5.31m was not acceptable by many people

but now 6.9m pwp has made 5.31m acceptable

is this 借屍還魂?

First, WP agreed with PAP on their ridiculous million dollars salaries. Now? They are going to agree on this issue again!!! WTF!!! WP is a two headed snake.

 

[cleareyes]

The SDP team produced three *detailed* plans on 1) Healthcare, 2) Housing and 3) Population Papers.

The SDP Papers are totally NOT paid by the taxpayers. NOT a single cent of MP allowance at all.

Remember the old saying, "When there is will, there will be a way".

SDP does not have a single MPS to run. Not to mention no grassroot activities to organise.

 

[virus]

the only white paper you need to know/

1/ how much will a 5room flat cost you as a new buyer
2/ how fast and uncrowded will the mrt be, and how much to travel from pasir ris to orchard road

3/ how much your pay will climb to against how fast inflation will climb
4/ will your job b protected when you hit 40? 45? 50? 60?
5/ how much will cpf be retained and how much cpf contribution will be made

6/ how much will a simple visit to outpatient cost you.
7/ how much to set aside for funeral
8/ what is the cost of living in batam, JB or penang. I mean the old folks home where you will be condemned to.

 

[winnipegjets]

Agree. WP should not and cannot use that as an excuse.

If it dun want to show its card then by all means dun.

But comparing WP to SDP is really embarrassingly stupid and embarrassingly lame.

One has to put up with fake 40% like yourself while looking into the interests of those that risked their own backyard to vote WP into Parliament and working on improving their engagement on the ground.

The other has always been The Invincible ONLINE Party, with no real commitment to real voters and no real ground work. It is expected to come up with papers after papers. So I think it is not really doing its job by coming up with only 3. No?

SDP doesn't have constituencies to run. That's a big, big difference. WP is on the ground to make real difference so that sinkees will see that all the tales on the Opposition put up by the PAP are lies. And that benefits ALL the opposition.

 

[steffychun]

SDP does not have a single MPS to run. Not to mention no grassroot activities to organise.

SDP is also anti-military. It assumes a close to 0% defence budget

 

[steffychun]

It is not for the WP to spell out its plan in details. If the Opposition is provided funding like in other democracies, then to ask them to produce detail plan is reasonable. The government has millionaire ministers and all the resource of the bureaucrats to do their work and you expect the WP with resource of MP allowances to do same level of work as the government? By the way, the allowances of the MP are also used for constituency work. So, don't make unreasonable requests of the opposition MPs.

I very much agree. But soon they have to provide a strong alternative.