- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
[h=2]Referendum is the only way proposals in the population white paper can attain legitimacy[/h]
February 4th, 2013 |
Author: Contributions
Since the furore over the population white paper various official statements have been made to try to pacify the people. One such statement is that the scary figure of 6.9 million is not a target but simply the worst case scenario the planners can foresee and it is merely a planning assumption. On the basis of this assumption the government wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure to cater for 6.9 million people on this island. In so doing the government wants to destroy a lot of what’s left of this island’s natural beauty and in so doing make a hot and crowded
island hotter and more crowded. The government will go so far as to take away military training grounds which for decades have proven essential to maintain the credibility of the Singapore Armed Forces. Which army will be taken seriously if they have nowhere to train? Is it in the interests of national defence to reduce training facilities?
I have a number of points to make. First, how likely is it that the population will reach 6.9 million? This could only happen naturally if Singaporeans suddenly started copulating furiously and procreating like rabbits which is very unlikely. Why go to so much expense and trouble to prepare for a worst case scenario that is very unlikely to happen naturally? The only other way this could happen is unnaturally through immigration. And this is entirely within the government’s control. If a planner foresees a worst case scenario that is likely to materialise he should act to stop it from happening. In the 70s the PAP government planners foresaw a similar problem. The fear was that natural population growth would overwhelm this tiny island’s limited space and resources like water. The result was the grammatically questionable “Two Is Enough” policy. The planners acted to stop a problem they foresaw rather than rushing to tear up golf courses and build high density housing everywhere to prepare for the materialisation of the problem. This policy served the country for about two decades until the Goh Chok Tong government decided they needed millions more dollars in salaries and millions more people in the country.
The fact is this worst case scenario which the government wants to prepare for is very likely to materialise because it is the direct result of the policy outlined in the White Paper. This document states its objective is to set “out the key considerations and roadmap for Singapore ’s population policies …”. It talks about taking in “between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens each year” and to give 30,000 PRs each year. It concludes, “With this controlled immigration rate, the citizen population is projected to be between 3.6 and 3.8 million by 2030. Together with the PR population of 0.5 to 0.6 million, this gives a resident population (comprising citizens and PRs) of between 4.2 and 4.4 million in 2030, depending on birth rates, immigration and life expectancy”. When the non-resident population is factored in, “By 2030, Singapore ’s total population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million.” Mr Iswaran has recently said that we should not be too concerned with the 6.9 million figure as “it is the upper bound of a range of 6.5 to 6.9 million figure by 2030”. Well Mr Iswaran, 6.5 million is no more acceptable than 6.9 million. Further, given the small difference between the upper and lower limits of the range of anticipated people in Singapore it is disingenuous to try to calm people down by saying 6.9 million is not a target but a planning assumption. Of course you have to prepare for 6.9 million if your target is a population of 6.5 to 6.9 million! It is very likely that the “upper bound” of the range will be hit.
The first chart in the White Paper shows the declining TFR since the 70s. This should not be surprising as it was the PAP’s policy in the 70s to reduce the TFR. When the PAP realised this was going to be a problem they tried in vain to reverse it. The idea of increasing the population through immigration then took root and the PAP realised there was nearly no limit as to how many people they could import. Various numbers have been mentioned ranging from 4 to 8 million. This all suggests the PAP never really knew what the optimum population size should be. However, what is undeniable, and you don’t need to be an expert to know this, is that the number of people in Singapore today is way too high. Just look at our roads, our trains and buses, our shopping centres and our parks to see irrefutable evidence of this fact. At least the PM was able to admit his government lacked foresight which resulted in the huge social and economic problems today. However, this does not give me any confidence that he has now suddenly found the foresight he once lacked. He seems to be overcompensating by planning “aggressively” for “worst case scenarios”. What if he is wrong? What if his foresight fails him again? What if he builds too many houses and apartments? Will we be left with ghost towns? Will he allow HDB prices to fall drastically as a result of the over supply due to “aggressive planning”? And what about all the public money that has been wasted building train lines that few use?
Clearly much more science and consultation is required before we embark on this massive social and economic experiment which is not risk free. One obvious question is whether the police can cope with so many more people to maintain law and order. The government appears rather cavalier about the risks. This obviously results from the government’s irrational but unshakeable belief in its abilities and also from the fact that the consequences of failure will not likely affect the ministers personally. With more millions than they need in their personal bank accounts it is easy for them to leave Singapore if things go wrong. It’s no surprise therefore if they approached Singapore ’s demographic challenges from a purely theoretical perspective. The PM in particular cannot be expected to truly understand the problems of overcrowding. I doubt he has ever been in an overcrowded train during rush hour without the security bubble that constantly surrounds him. He knows about our problems like I know about the problems of Ethiopians when their crops fail due to drought. It’s something I’ve read about and understand in an intellectual way but I have no real understanding of the plight of these people.
Clearly a referendum is the only way such a massive and potentially risky undertaking can attain legitimacy.
.
John Tan
Since the furore over the population white paper various official statements have been made to try to pacify the people. One such statement is that the scary figure of 6.9 million is not a target but simply the worst case scenario the planners can foresee and it is merely a planning assumption. On the basis of this assumption the government wants to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on infrastructure to cater for 6.9 million people on this island. In so doing the government wants to destroy a lot of what’s left of this island’s natural beauty and in so doing make a hot and crowded
island hotter and more crowded. The government will go so far as to take away military training grounds which for decades have proven essential to maintain the credibility of the Singapore Armed Forces. Which army will be taken seriously if they have nowhere to train? Is it in the interests of national defence to reduce training facilities?
I have a number of points to make. First, how likely is it that the population will reach 6.9 million? This could only happen naturally if Singaporeans suddenly started copulating furiously and procreating like rabbits which is very unlikely. Why go to so much expense and trouble to prepare for a worst case scenario that is very unlikely to happen naturally? The only other way this could happen is unnaturally through immigration. And this is entirely within the government’s control. If a planner foresees a worst case scenario that is likely to materialise he should act to stop it from happening. In the 70s the PAP government planners foresaw a similar problem. The fear was that natural population growth would overwhelm this tiny island’s limited space and resources like water. The result was the grammatically questionable “Two Is Enough” policy. The planners acted to stop a problem they foresaw rather than rushing to tear up golf courses and build high density housing everywhere to prepare for the materialisation of the problem. This policy served the country for about two decades until the Goh Chok Tong government decided they needed millions more dollars in salaries and millions more people in the country.
The fact is this worst case scenario which the government wants to prepare for is very likely to materialise because it is the direct result of the policy outlined in the White Paper. This document states its objective is to set “out the key considerations and roadmap for Singapore ’s population policies …”. It talks about taking in “between 15,000 and 25,000 new citizens each year” and to give 30,000 PRs each year. It concludes, “With this controlled immigration rate, the citizen population is projected to be between 3.6 and 3.8 million by 2030. Together with the PR population of 0.5 to 0.6 million, this gives a resident population (comprising citizens and PRs) of between 4.2 and 4.4 million in 2030, depending on birth rates, immigration and life expectancy”. When the non-resident population is factored in, “By 2030, Singapore ’s total population could range between 6.5 and 6.9 million.” Mr Iswaran has recently said that we should not be too concerned with the 6.9 million figure as “it is the upper bound of a range of 6.5 to 6.9 million figure by 2030”. Well Mr Iswaran, 6.5 million is no more acceptable than 6.9 million. Further, given the small difference between the upper and lower limits of the range of anticipated people in Singapore it is disingenuous to try to calm people down by saying 6.9 million is not a target but a planning assumption. Of course you have to prepare for 6.9 million if your target is a population of 6.5 to 6.9 million! It is very likely that the “upper bound” of the range will be hit.
The first chart in the White Paper shows the declining TFR since the 70s. This should not be surprising as it was the PAP’s policy in the 70s to reduce the TFR. When the PAP realised this was going to be a problem they tried in vain to reverse it. The idea of increasing the population through immigration then took root and the PAP realised there was nearly no limit as to how many people they could import. Various numbers have been mentioned ranging from 4 to 8 million. This all suggests the PAP never really knew what the optimum population size should be. However, what is undeniable, and you don’t need to be an expert to know this, is that the number of people in Singapore today is way too high. Just look at our roads, our trains and buses, our shopping centres and our parks to see irrefutable evidence of this fact. At least the PM was able to admit his government lacked foresight which resulted in the huge social and economic problems today. However, this does not give me any confidence that he has now suddenly found the foresight he once lacked. He seems to be overcompensating by planning “aggressively” for “worst case scenarios”. What if he is wrong? What if his foresight fails him again? What if he builds too many houses and apartments? Will we be left with ghost towns? Will he allow HDB prices to fall drastically as a result of the over supply due to “aggressive planning”? And what about all the public money that has been wasted building train lines that few use?
Clearly much more science and consultation is required before we embark on this massive social and economic experiment which is not risk free. One obvious question is whether the police can cope with so many more people to maintain law and order. The government appears rather cavalier about the risks. This obviously results from the government’s irrational but unshakeable belief in its abilities and also from the fact that the consequences of failure will not likely affect the ministers personally. With more millions than they need in their personal bank accounts it is easy for them to leave Singapore if things go wrong. It’s no surprise therefore if they approached Singapore ’s demographic challenges from a purely theoretical perspective. The PM in particular cannot be expected to truly understand the problems of overcrowding. I doubt he has ever been in an overcrowded train during rush hour without the security bubble that constantly surrounds him. He knows about our problems like I know about the problems of Ethiopians when their crops fail due to drought. It’s something I’ve read about and understand in an intellectual way but I have no real understanding of the plight of these people.
Clearly a referendum is the only way such a massive and potentially risky undertaking can attain legitimacy.
.
John Tan
