PAP LUMBER 1 PORLUMPAR, ALBERT NG YA KEN aka NG AH KAN - dossier ad nauseum

[brocoli]

Mr Albert Ng was trained as an economist with a Masters degree (M.Soc.Sc.) from University of Waikato, New Zealand. He currently runs his own consulting firm, Multinet Management Consultants, a firm he set up in 1995. Between 1992 and 1995, he practiced market research and management consulting, first at the Marketing Institute of Singapore and later at the Enterprise Promotion Centre as its Senior Consulting Manager. In his consulting career, Mr Ng has served companies from a wide spectrum of industries, including banking, telecommunications, statutory bodies, manufacturing and service industries.

Mr Ng was trained as an economist with a Bachelor degree from the former Nanyang University and a Master’s degree from the University of Waikato, New Zealand. He worked as a senior statistician with the Ministry of Trade and Industry in the 1970s and early 1980s before joining the private sector. He was a senior manager at Singapore Press Holdings and a senior consulting manager at the Marketing Institute of Singapore and the Enterprise Promotion Centres. Currently he works as a freelance consultant in market research and business development.

http://www.oceanskyintl.com/board_of_directors

Independent Director and Member of Audit Committee and Member of Remuneration Committee, Ocean Sky International Limited

http://investing.businessweek.com/r...814&previousTitle=OCEAN SKY INTERNATIONAL LTD

 

[brocoli]

6.5-million population - not if but when

Straits Times Forum 7 Mar 07

Letter from Ng Ya Ken

NATIONAL Development Minister Mah Bow Tan and Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng have clarified that the 6.5-million population projection was not a target but a parameter used in the planning of land use and transportation for the next 40-50 years.

Planned or otherwise, Singapore's population would reach 6.5 million one day - barring any global catastrophe. Neither is it an option not to move to 6.5 million - unless a big breakthrough in using robots to replace manpower could be achieved in the next few decades, or we decide not to take full advantage of globalisation.

Without continuous population growth, our survival would be at risk. According to the United Nations, by 2015 there would be 35 cities in Asia with more people than Singapore - assuming we have a five-million population then.

Out of these 35 cities, 13 to 15 would become mega-cities with 10 million population or more. Heading the list would be Tokyo (27 million), followed by Mumbai, Dhaka, Karachi, Jakarta, Calcutta, New Delhi, Shanghai, Manila, Beijing, Osaka and Tianjin. Other likely candidates include Hyderabad, Seoul, Bangkok and Lahore. Hong Kong's population was estimated at 8 million.

Many of these 13 to 15 mega-cities and the 20 to 22 very large cities in Asia are our competitors for foreign investment and talent. From 2000 to 2050, the UN estimated that Asia's population would increase by 44 per cent, while South-east Asia would see an increase of 53 per cent.

Our projection of 6.5 million represents an increase of over 60 per cent over our 2000 population.

The higher projected rate compared to the rest of Asia is understandable. Firstly, with a higher employment rate than most Asian countries, we need to continuously enlarge our manpower base at a higher rate to support future economic growth.

Secondly, for planning purposes, it is prudent to use a higher parameter. In time to come, when our people get more accustomed to the 6.5-million-population forecast, we need to quickly inject a stronger political vision and endorsement. This would facilitate not just physical planning, but also the political, social, economic and other facets of planning in order to lift Singapore into the upper spectrum of the First World.

Forty or 50 years is not a long way to go. Also, the issue of a large influx of immigrants is a very complicated and challenging one. The earlier we face up to the issue, the more prepared we will be.

 

[brocoli]

Give more to those who got less in the past

March 7, 2008
http://www.straitstimes.com/Budget+2008/Letters+%26+Comments/Story/STIStory_214257.html

THE introduction of means testing for admission to public hospitals is a big step forward in the management of subsidies. The sliding scale of declining subsidies for those earning more is not a perfect method. But it helps ensure benefits are given to those who need them most.
The type of dwelling has been a key factor in deciding the distribution of Budget goodies. Perhaps the criteria should be fine-tuned to enhance equitability, and achieve maximum social benefit from the subsidies offered.

One principle of distribution equity is that those who have benefited more in the past should receive less in the future, so more can be given to those who received less in the past.

If we have a system that records, estimates or simulates all major subsidies and handouts exceeding $10,000 given to citizens in the past, say, 20 years, we would be able to determine who and which segment of the population received more subsidies than the rest, and by how much.

Some households enjoy as high as $88,000 in Housing Board subsidies, according to a simulation study disclosed by the Government. In addition, many HDB residents also receive handsome upgrading subsidies.

The education subsidy is also generous. Tuition subsidy for three years in a local university can amount to $50,000 or more, excluding scholarships and other assistance.

For a young, well-educated couple who have benefited from both the HDB subsidy and the university tuition subsidy, the two benefits they enjoyed could well reach $200,000 or more.

Conversely, another couple, who happen to be non-graduates and do not qualify to buy an HDB flat for whatever reason, are worse off than the first couple by $200,000 in subsidies received.

From this perspective, the Government could be a little more generous to the second couple when distributing Budget goodies and other assistance.

Likewise, it could also consider giving more incentives to graduates returning from overseas who have not benefited from university tuition subsidy here.

The same idea could be applied to newly naturalised citizens who have not enjoyed any education subsidy from the system. The gesture would help retain and attract more talent to Singapore.
Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

Variety needed in HDB income-ceiling rule

http://www.asiaone.com/Business/My+Money/Property/Story/A1Story20080425-61779.html
Thu, Apr 24, 2008
The Straits Times

MR SONG Yee Soon proposed that the household income ceiling be raised to more than $8,000 for high-end Housing Board flat buyers ('Raise income ceiling on HDB flats over $500k', April 16).

Over the years, the HDB has responded well to increasing diversity in housing needs. The Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) is one example. A DBSS flat may cost five times or more than a common HDB two-room flat. It shows how diverse HDB flat buyers are now.

But should the buyer of a $700,000 flat be subject to the same income ceiling as the buyer of a flat that costs one-sixth the price?

Also, many couples who marry at over 35 may not qualify for public flats. Older second-time buyers may also find this ceiling restrictive.

MR SONG Yee Soon proposed that the household income ceiling be raised to more than $8,000 for high-end Housing Board flat buyers ('Raise income ceiling on HDB flats over $500k', April 16).

Over the years, the HDB has responded well to increasing diversity in housing needs. The Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) is one example. A DBSS flat may cost five times or more than a common HDB two-room flat. It shows how diverse HDB flat buyers are now.

But should the buyer of a $700,000 flat be subject to the same income ceiling as the buyer of a flat that costs one-sixth the price?

Also, many couples who marry at over 35 may not qualify for public flats. Older second-time buyers may also find this ceiling restrictive.

Couples who have worked overseas, and have missed the chance to apply for an HDB flat earlier, may face the same hurdle. Is there a better way to entice them home?
Should we be more empathetic to these fellow citizens, who are caught out by the income ceiling rule, and allow them to share the fruits of our nation's labour?

The income-ceiling rule is an elimination system, not an evaluation system. In an evaluation system, multiple factors and situations are assessed to derive a more balanced verdict.

Conversely, a complicated evaluation system with too many factors may be cumbersome and confusing to the public.

To keep it simple, retain the income-ceiling rule but refine it by incorporating additional factors.

For example, develop an age-specific income-ceiling scale, where older applicants can enjoy a higher ceiling. Raise the ceiling by $1,000 for those aged 35 and above, for instance.

We could also add a third factor - type of flat applied for. High-end flats could have a separate scale. Also, determine if three-room and smaller flats should have a separate ceiling.

These changes may increase the number of eligible buyers. Examine if additional housing funds are justified or changes should be made to the existing subsidy structure so the lower-income group are not disadvantaged as a result.

The challenge is how to achieve the optimal balance where social benefits of the public housing scheme are maximised within resource constraints.

Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

Embracing foreigners

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC101106-0000067/Embracing-foreigners
Letter from Ng Ya Ken
05:55 AM Nov 06, 2010


I REFER to Mr Balji's commentary "The mood of a nation" (Nov 3), in which he quoted one of his friends telling him that while he enjoyed the company of his many foreign friends, he was against "the unchecked entry of these people into Singapore".

If I were Mr Balji, I would have asked that friend what he meant by "unchecked entry". Who actually brought in these foreigners - the Government or businesses? Why always put the blame on the Government?

The number of jobs created here this year will likely hit 100,000. Around 1990, about 50,000 babies were born a year. So, we have only about 50,000 locals joining the workforce each year. This shortage of workers is a perpetual issue and will become more acute as only about 40,000 babies are born annually now.

Complaining that our trains are crowded, our roads congested and our houses expensive because of the influx of foreigners is only touching on the negative part of the picture. What about the benefits foreigners generate for Singapore? Our increasing globalisation and ventures into new frontiers, such as life sciences and clean energy, would not be possible without them.

It is important that people grasp the full picture, especially the underlying reasons why such a big number of foreigners is needed.

Mr Balji has just missed an opportunity in his commentary to qualify that his friend's conjecture on the "unchecked entry" of foreigners was incorrect.

I hope the foreigner issue will not be overplayed or blown out of proportion in the coming election campaign, just for the sake of gaining votes. We must not create new social divides or send the wrong message to the world outside.

 

[brocoli]

6.5m people, more or less??

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110103-0000139/6,5m-people,-more-or-less

Letter from Ng Ya Ken
05:55 AM Jan 03, 2011

THE Government has yet to announce any official population projection for the next few decades, although it has been using a 6.5 million population parameter for physical planning for the next 30 to 40 years. It has repeatedly said that the 6.5 million figure is not a target.

In contrast, Hong Kong's Census and Statistical Office frequently updates its population forecast, with the latest one made in July last year, showing that its 7 million population in 2009 would expand to 8.89 million by 2039.

Why does Hong Kong - with a fertility rate lower than ours - want to tell the world that its population will expand by 27 per cent over the next 30 years?

One of the purposes is to convince the world that it has an expanding workforce to meet the need of economic growth for the next three decades - as a tool for boosting business confidence and attracting foreign investments in a territory where local the population is declining.

It also shows that the Hong Kong authorities are not avoiding the hard questions on immigration issues, since future population growth will have to rely solely on immigration. It also serves as a reminder to the locals to face up to the unavoidable reality of having to work and live with more immigrants in future years.

The Hong Kong release, which shows forecasts at five-year intervals till 2039, can be used for not only urban planning but also for planning in education, health and other social services.

Businesses can also use it to plan their investments, especially those that depend on the mass market or take longer to fully reap the profits.

Should we not do the same as Hong Kong, so that a common population forecast and its accompanying assumptions can be used for planning purposes among the various ministries in the Government?

In projecting long-term population figures, we are forced to take a harder look at factors and possible scenarios affecting not only population growth but also economic growth and other aspects of our future.

Population projection can be a very profound, deep-thinking and forward-looking process, from which we as a nation can learn many valuable things.

The Government should not be unduly concerned about how the people will react to the projection as long as it is conducted with the nation's best interests being placed as the ultimate goal.

 

[brocoli]

Japan needs tough action

Inward-looking posture will lead to downsizing of its external sector
Letter from Ng Ya Ken
05:55 AM Jan 18, 2011

IN HIS commentary "Japan finds more to life than growth" (Jan 11), Mr David Pilling has given a balanced account of Japan's twin woes in its economy and demography.

Although Japan has so far failed to recover its past economic vigour, he commented that Japan still manages to keep its citizens employed, safe, economically comfortable and living longer lives.

The article quoted Japanese literature professor Norihiro Kato, who suggested in The New York Times recently that "Japan had entered a 'post-growth era' in which the illusion of limitless expansion had given way to something more profound ... Japan does not need to be No 2 in the world, nor No 5 or 15. It is time to look into more important things".

Is Prof Kato's view a sign indicating a rise in an inward-looking posture in Japan - with an economy still deemed to be protective by many?

Japan refuses to take in more foreigners despite a United Nations study showing that it needs 1 million immigrants annually for the next 50 years to uphold its dependency ratio.

The command of English among its citizens is still poor in comparison with their high achievements in education, technology and economy.

Measures to make its citizens "economically comfortable" and to take care of the elderly come with a heavy price. Japan's fiscal debt to GDP ratio is now one of the highest in the world.

It is predicted that by 2025, social welfare will account for a quarter of its Budget.

What "more profound" things - in Prof Kato's terminology - can be generated from such a high social welfare handout?

The inward-looking posture will lead to downsizing of its external sector, which will be disastrous in the long-term.

Japan needs to fine-tune and restart the engine of growth, creating more stable and better-paying jobs, and reduce its budget deficit.

It could revitalise its aggressive international marketing vigour of the past. It could open its economy more, expose its people more to external changes and challenges and step up engagement with the rest of the world.

In Singapore, we do well in adapting to globalisation.

We also make great efforts in tackling problems relating to ageing, a low birth rate and other social issues. We embrace foreigners and help them assimilate into our society.

Singapore is decisive and fast in taking tough but necessary action - something Japan is lacking now.

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110118-0000111/Japan-needs-tough-action

 

[brocoli]

Don't cut immigration ...

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110131-0000114/Dont-cut-immigration-
Letter from Ng Ya Ken
05:55 AM Jan 31, 2011

IN THE commentary "How to secure our future" (Jan 28), Mr Ngiam Tong Dow seemed concerned that we might not persevere in the acquisition of knowledge to secure our future but might revert to the old low-wage industrial structure instead.

Knowledge-based industries need a deep foundation in research, design, production and other support services. Many skill-based workers are needed in the process. There is no shortcut for knowledge accumulation. Even if we possess the know-how, we must have the comparative edge to turn it into a success.

In turning their economies knowledge-based, growing cities must first be able to attract manpower of all levels - including the skill- and brawn-based.

Places like Silicon Valley and Shanghai are able to achieve success in such a short time because of their ability to attract large numbers of internal and external immigrants. Their immigrant figures are much higher than ours.

Booming cities need plenty of brawn-based foreign workers for constructing roads, houses and offices, cleaning the city and serving food in eateries. Without them the cities would be lifeless and soon skilled workers would leave.

Yes, the number of permanent residents here has increased quickly in recent years. But to refer it as a knee-jerk reaction by the Government to our low birth rates is unfair. Would it have been better that we turn away businesses outright and wait until sufficient number of babies are born and educated in universities before we approve companies to expand or invest here?

Also, some of our immigrants could well be working in knowledge-based industries now or nurturing our citizens for challenges in these industries.

It may take us a hundred years to become "One People", said Mr Ngiam. But if we were to stop immigration now, our 3 million or so citizens could decline to 1.5 million in less than 100 years - with a third aged 60 or older.

Once there are signs that Singapore is on the decline, cites around us will take away our businesses bit by bit. In 20 to 30 years, we will lose our status as a regional hub and as a modern city decades later.

To suggest that we should compete with the world on knowledge-based industries while urging a clamp-down on immigration is contradictory and unrealistic.

 

[mojito]

Re: Japan needs tough action

The workforce is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding workforce.

 

[brocoli]

Why lose the losers?

http://blogs.todayonline.com/singaporevotes/2011/05/09/why-lose-the-losers/
Published at 5:34 pm, May 9, 2011
Letter from Ng Ya Ken

A question many Singaporeans might have asked yesterday morning when they found out that the People’s Action Party (PAP) team led by Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo had lost in the Aljunied Group Representation Constituency (GRC) contest was: Why didn’t the PAP change the game plan such as putting George Yeo, Lim Hwee Hua and Zainul Adidin Rasheed in another GRC?

In any election system, there is no guarantee that the best men or women would always win. However, it is a great loss to the nation when we lose experienced and capable ministers like the above three in a General Election (GE).

With this experience, it is time that we modify and improve our existing election system and approach. One way is allowing a “wild card” window in a GE so that a second chance could be provided for certain losing candidates to have another contest immediately after the GE

We could set aside one GRC not to be contested during a GE. The Ruling Party could place any of their losing candidates for this empty GRC and invite the best losing GRC team from the Opposition to contest.

 

[brocoli]

Go for age-specific income ceiling

straitstimes.com 21 Jun '11, 8pm

LAST Friday's report said today's first-time HDB flat applicants are older than before, and likely to be earning more - making a review of the income ceiling necessary ('New flat buyers are older, earn more').

As income earning is closely related to age, the Housing Board should study the merits of an age-specific income ceiling system. In the current age-blind system, older, newly wed couples are at a disadvantage compared with younger couples. Raising the ceiling by $2,000 may not help older couples.

With a progressive income ceiling system based on age, the Housing Board can let the base ceiling remain as it is for young couples and raise it incrementally for those older.

An age-specific system would be fairer than the current one, especially for first-time buyers.

Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

State what contributions they would render in the purview, if elected.

Published on Jul 28, 2011
http://stqarender.asia1.com.sg/STForum/Story/STIStory_252576.html
MR NG YA KEN: 'I agree with Mr Tan Kin Lian that an elected president can echo citizens' opinions ('Elected president can be voice of the people'; Monday). But there is a potential danger if presidential hopefuls amplify this minor role out of proportion in campaigning. Many people would then vote according to who has made the biggest promise to be their voice. A president who wins office through this tactic would eventually become another political pillar. This is politicising. Presidential hopefuls should concentrate on the purview provided by the Constitution and state what contributions they would render in the purview, if elected.'

 

[brocoli]

Tweak presidential election rules

11 September 2011

SOME observations made by Mr Gopinath Pillai ("Electoral college not the solution"; Tuesday) puzzled me, for example, his remark that "65 per cent of the electorate wanted a president who had no previous close links with the ruling party".

In a four-cornered contest, we cannot establish that the 65 per cent who did not vote for Dr Tony Tan were "against" him. If a Miss Singapore won by 35 per cent of the votes, we cannot say that 65 per cent did not want her to be Miss Singapore. We may say that 65 per cent preferred the other finalists.

Also, voters might have considered many factors when making their decisions. We need to conduct a survey to find out. The summarised statistics revealed nothing on that.

But if Mr Pillai was correct, then presidential potentials like Mr S. Dhanabalan and Mr Abdullah Tarmugi would have no chance at all against a "non-PAP" candidate in a straight two-way election in the future. We would have a serious problem.

This election had exposed some possible fault lines, which require more urgent attention.

A thin margin of victory was not unexpected in a multi-cornered contest. Are our rules rigorous enough to prevent candidates from rigging the results by collaborating?

There was no collaboration this time. But we cannot assume there would not be any in the future.

Some candidates may be new to the electorate. As voters are choosing a president, not a Member of Parliament, the stake is very high.

Extend the period between receiving the eligibility certificates and Nomination Day to three months, during which time candidates can hold talks and other activities to interact with citizens.

This would give voters more time to observe and evaluate the candidates, avoiding making hasty decisions later.

The eligibility assessment committee should take into account the candidates' public or community service, international exposure, contributions to economic, scientific, academic or cultural domains, and other qualities needed to hold the highest office in the land. When presidential aspirants increase in the future, only those with these extra contributions or qualities should be selected.

This would convey a message to the public that the eligibility criteria are just necessary or minimum conditions, and not sufficient conditions.

Voters would then think along this line when choosing their president.

Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

Population projections show us the choices

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC110915-0000389/Population-projections-show-us-the-choices

Letter from Ng Ya Ken
04:46 AM Sep 15, 2011


I REFER to the letter "Our population can't keep rising" (Sept 14).

Projections made under different assumptions give us a quantitative idea of the possible results if certain actions are taken under certain circumstances. With these projections, we then choose what actions to take to achieve a desired result.

The population projections by the Institute of Policy Studies showed that, with an ageing population, increasing numbers of immigrants would be needed to sustain acceptable support ratios in the future.

If we do not accept these scenarios, then we have to contemplate the alternatives.

We could aim for three or four children per married couple, slow down economic growth to 2 per cent, raise productivity by working harder or longer, cut down non-essential consumption to save labour, boost self-help community services or downplay our role in international business, sports, culture and politics.

Instead of maintaining our status as a vibrant and modern city, we slow down the pace of life and cut down our expectations. We do not have to be the cleanest city or have the best airport in the world. We do not have to promote Singapore as a tourist spot.

We shall not worry if our international standing drops or if we are not so attractive to foreign investments due to shortage of manpower and world-class facilities.


When the support ratio drops - which means fewer working persons per elderly - we could raise taxes or borrow money to finance public expenditure, like Japan had been doing all these years. Also, we could use our reserves.

Five years ago, the population parameter used for planning land use for the next 30 to 40 years was raised to 6.5 million.

Let us revert to the original 5.5 million and plan for fewer roads, schools, hospitals, houses, factories and shops, if we agree to have that as our maximum population.

Personally, I prefer to live in the Singapore of the mid-'80s. But I know we cannot forever remain in the '80s or '90s. No country in the world could, without being sidelined.

 

[brocoli]

Mesh immigrants into society

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_719228.html
Published on Oct 3, 2011

OUR population has increased by about 2 per cent to 5.18 million, with residents making up 3.79 million ('PR numbers down for first time in 20 years'; last Thursday).

Early last month, the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) presented four scenarios of population projection for 2050. In the most realistic second scenario, resident population would increase to 4.89 million by 2050. The 4.89 million figure excluded non-residents, which number 1.39 million now.

Going by the IPS study and the latest statistics, my conclusion is that immigration and population growth are unavoidable realities if Singapore wants to sustain its prosperity.

If we accept these realities fully, there will be less room for the immigration issue to be exploited politically and socially.

We can also focus more energy and resources on solving issues related to immigration and on building a cohesive nation.

This requires a social fabric that money cannot buy, that must be cultivated through years of good faith, trust and cooperation between old and new residents.

We must boost efforts to create such a social fabric just as we need to arrest the deterioration of family bonds and declining fertility.

We should match the amount spent on boosting fertility with that set aside for helping new immigrants integrate into our society and for helping local- and foreign-born residents to bond.

Part of the money could also be used to buttress the 'Singaporeans first' policy to entice more immigrants to apply for citizenship.

Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

How about emulating Mr Lee's spoken English?

Published on Oct 11, 2011
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_721791.html

MR LEE Kuan Yew said recently that American English would become more dominant in the future and that we might have to consider teaching it in schools one day.

The latest response to the idea was from Professor Alan Tye ("Preferred accent"; last Saturday).

Though not a native speaker, Mr Lee's command of the English language is widely admired by Western and non-Western audiences, including political leaders.

He may speak with some foreign accent in front of Western audiences sometimes, but his accent is mild. When he speaks to fellow citizens at home, his spoken English is aesthetically better, to Singaporeans at least.

Mr Lee's spoken English is distinctive and can be acceptable in any continent on the globe. So, why not consider modelling his spoken English as the third option?

Teaching students British English or American English is one thing, but whether they would speak it is another. Modelling Mr Lee's spoken English is a more realistic and achievable target.


We could also identify good spoken English of other Singaporeans, and perhaps also Malaysians, and hire English language experts to research and develop these versions into a system.

Incidentally, a 10-volume collection of Mr Lee's speeches, interviews and dialogues was launched last month. If an audio version of some of these speeches is made available, it would benefit those who want to emulate Mr Lee's spoken English.

The audio edition would be a valuable resource for linguistic studies, regardless whether we decide to develop our own brand of spoken English or not.
Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

Overcrowding should be the least of our long-term worries

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/E...-should-be-the-least-of-our-long-term-worries

Letter from Ng Ya Ken
04:46 AM Oct 14, 2011
When he opened Parliament on Monday, President Tony Tan urged Singaporeans to prevent a new fault line from forming between those born here and new immigrants.

A prerequisite to tackling this issue is that Singaporeans have a good grasp of the serious implications of an ageing population and declining fertility.

When the mid-year statistics showed that the number of permanent residents had dropped by 9,000, hardly anyone expressed concern. Some took it as a good sign, unaware that a decline in the number of permanent residents spells big problems for our future.

Parliament should debate over the recent Institute of Policy Studies population study, which presented to the public four population projection scenarios for 2050 out of the 48 it looked at.

In the first and fourth scenarios, which were based on zero net migration, the support ratio - working-age persons to one elderly - would drop from 8.2:1 last year to 1.7:1 and 1.9:1, respectively, with the median age forecast to be 54.6 and 50.9. These two scenarios are unthinkable.

In the second and third scenarios, based on 30,000 and 60,000 net migrants each year; the support ratio would still drop, to 2.7:1 and 3.5:1, respectively.

The second scenario was deemed more realistic, with concerns that 60,000 new PRs a year might not be "politically digestible". In the second scenario, citizens and PRs would increase by 1.1 million to 4.89 million by 2050.

Any attempt to cut the number of net migrants now is short-sighted and irresponsible. Future generations would have to accept more than 30,000 migrants yearly in order to prevent the support ratio from dropping too fast.

The various implications of an ageing population and declining support ratio should be rigorously contemplated and debated in Parliament, after which it should endorse the IPS study as a reference for making population and related policies.

The Government, the Opposition and the people should act in unison in dealing with our population problems, so that more comprehensive and decisive actions can be taken. We can have different views on the approach and policy or on the composition and profile of PRs.

But please do not look back and ask again whether we should cut their numbers or complain about overcrowding.

 

[brocoli]

Focus on mother tongue in pre-schools

http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/OnlineStory/STIStory_724008.html
Published on Oct 17, 2011
IF WE agree with former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's advice ('English in school, Mandarin at home'; Oct 8), we could take it a step further by having mother tongue taught as a first language in play schools and pre-schools.

As language is best grasped at a young age, two-year-old toddlers should be exposed almost exclusively to their mother tongue, with English taught as a second language and its number of lessons increased later.

Concentrate on teaching conversational Mandarin, so that by the time they finish pre-school, children will be exposed to 1,000 Chinese words and phrases.

They should be able to articulate daily happenings in life and recite a 100- to 200-word story fluently.

Acquiring a good Mandarin foundation during a child's early years has other benefits.

The child will be able to integrate mother tongue with his identity and take ownership of the language, boosting his confidence in learning as he grows older.

If parents are patient enough to let their children's command of English lag behind Mandarin temporarily for two or three years, their forbearance will pay off in the end.

Once their children have acquired a good foundation in Chinese and are confident in learning it, they can spend more time on acquiring proficiency in English.

Ng Ya Ken

 

[brocoli]

'It is good to let the public know these figures.'

Published on Oct 29, 2011
http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_728262.html
MR NG YA KEN: 'The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) and the Singapore National Employers Federation (SNEF) disagreed on whether to impose more restrictive measures on hiring foreign workers ('NTUC, bosses disagree over foreign workers issue'; Oct 15). But no figures were reported to support their arguments. The basic data to start with would be the number of local people who are affected due to employment of foreigners, from NTUC; and figures on the shortage of workers in various positions and industries, from SNEF. The Government could also contribute the statistics it has. It is good to let the public know these figures so that they have a clearer picture of the situation.'

 

[brocoli]

A soft population policy threatens our long-term survival

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/E...ation-policy-threatens-our-long-term-survival
Letter from Ng Ya Ken
01:33 AM Oct 31, 2011

I agree with Mr Thomas Lim, in his letter "Look to building up Singaporeans first" (Oct 22), that we should take care of citizens and their problems first, amid an influx of foreigners here.

Every important policy, from National Service and transport management to the bilingual policy, has side effects. Our population policy is no exception.

The influx of immigrants and, to a certain extent, foreign workers is indispensable to sustaining our nation's long-term survival. We should explain to those affected and extend extra help to them. As a nation, these are manageable.

With 35,129 resident births last year and a total fertility rate of 1.15 - below the 2.1 replacement rate - we are short of 29,000 babies a year to replace ourselves. This deficit speeds up population ageing, with more catastrophic consequences.

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) recently projected that, at our low fertility rate and if we stop immigration now, our support ratio (number of working persons to the elderly) would decline from 8.2:1 last year to 1.7:1 by 2050.

This means that taxes for future working persons would double or triple. If this is unacceptable, the government would have to use the reserves or borrow from abroad. Over time, we would accumulate high national debts like in some Western nations and Japan.

IPS also forecast that half of our resident population would be 54.6 years or older by 2050, if we stop immigration now. Singapore would become an unattractive, old town.

IPS projected another, more sensible scenario: 30,000 net migrants allowed yearly. Still, the support ratio would drop to 2.7:1, with median population age forecast at 45.7, compared to 36 in 2005.

The population woes our future generations have to face are daunting, even with annual intakes of 30,000 migrants. Many of us will also be around in 2040 or 2050.

If we take the soft option of reducing the inflow of permanent residents - 29,265 were accepted last year - it adds an extra burden for future Singaporeans to make good and the consequences would haunt us later.

Our nation's long-term survival depends on our ability to attract 30,000 or more immigrants yearly and on our resilience to tackle the side effects, which are nothing compared to our future population woes.

If we cannot handle them now, what chance that future Singaporeans could?