I do not follow a
lot on the ranting of increasing our population to 6.9M. The existing infrastructure
have their own constrains to be able to cope with another 1.5M of population.
Look at our expressways. If we were to widen the roads, it will cut into
temples, homes, pavements. Our main MRT stations are already near to maximum
capacity. How much more can they transport? Our cars are already very
expensive. Must cars be so expensive that it is only a privilege for the wealthy?
 |
| So many people, almost no space to put them in my BLOG! |
In a nutshell, we
have experienced a 1M growth in population in less than a decade, but I do not
see my quality of life improving. Instead, I have to work longer hours as the
work market becomes more competitive. I have to handle difficult foreign
talents as they demand higher work quality from Singaporeans. Everyday unhappy
Singaporeans lament on the increase in population that led to the increase in
property prices.
I bought my car at
$46,000 when I was earning $46,000 per annum. Today, I earn $100,000 a year,
but a similar car cost $140,000. Is my life better?
Back in the same
year, an EC at La Casa costs 450k. Today a 5 Room BTO easily cost $450k as
well. Is this an improvement in quality of life?
If population growth
clearly had not improved my life, why would I believe it will improve in
future?
7 comments:
I totally agree with you.
Had been making a lot of comments in the Straits Times too.
It is very stressful living & travelling in S'pore.
But perhaps things could have been much worse if immigration policies had been more restrictive? We have already lost many manufacturing jobs and we had just undergone a global economic slowdown. Given the increasing wage competition from other countries and the sensitiveness of Singapore's economy to the global economic climate, the government is faced with two choices - lose companies and the associated jobs as they relocate to cheaper locales, or allow migrants to come in to serve as cheap labor and keep the companies and the associated jobs here. It's a some-or-nothing problem - some jobs for both locals and migrants or nothing for all locals.
True, the transport infrastructure is struggling to keep up right now. But I don't think it's reasonable for us to expect the government to beef up the system at the same speed as they are letting migrants in. The large influx of migrants is an emergency response to an unexpected change in global economic climate. It's a quick and effective damage control measure. Improving transport infrastructure is not just a policy change as it is with immigration. It takes years, and the government had embarked on the task years ago and is still doing it now. The MRT disruptions are the private operators' fault rather than the government's. The high COE prices are reasonable given the congestion levels on the roads everyday. It doesn't feel good right now, but it's pretty much the best option right now. Also, transport infrastructure aside, when is the last time you've had water shortage or power outage? I'm thankful for that.
Of course, there are other issue like property prices, minister wages, widening income gap, etc. Some things could have been done better, a lot better, and hopefully the government is learning from them. The government deserve criticisms, but I feel the government doesn't deserve the level of nuclear-rage-shit-smearing that I see online these days. So here's my piece to balance things out.
What do you think?
No, I do not agree.
Root of MRT disruptions are due to overloaded trains as govt relaxed immigration policies too fast too quick. I have no issue with cheap labour. But the middle class S pass are eroding the benefits/opportunities of middle class Singaporeans. Using tax payers money to fund Asean Scholars exuberate the root of this problem. The fundamental root of aging population is due to 2 child or less policy, which set the stage of aging population now. Solve the root of the problem, not adopting quick fixes by compromising on Singaporean Singapore. Such problems should be able to predict, given our small city demographics. With such high pay, self proclaimed first class government, such policies mistakes cannot be forgiven. If I make a mistake in my work, say causing a loss of $10k, I will likely lose my job. I do not see any minister losing their job yet for these plunders.
Responding to
wmjdgla said...
Please don't take whatever is said by the government as it is. Do some research on your own.
I shall put forth my arguments in 2 parts: EMPLOYMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE.
EMPLOYMENT
• I believe most Singaporeans are educated enuf to know that we need foreign workers to do those jobs that Singaporeans do not want for themselves, ie the WORK PERMIT holders.
• Employment Pass holders are the jobs that I believe is squeezing out the middle-class Singaporeans. These EP holders are required to have a degree or diploma with a minimum salary of $2,000 fixed monthly salary. Doesn’t that sounds like our fresh graduates? What about Singaporeans graduating from ITE? Can they find a job when foreign labour is cheaper? What about P1 EP (min $8K monthly salary), P2 EP (min $4.5K) and Q1 EP (min 3K)? Are you in any of these salary brackets?
• You can let immigrants in more easily than “chasing” them out. Once the tap is turned, it is quite difficult to reverse the process. I am all for integrating the foreign talent to our Singaporean culture. I am NOT saying “chase the FTs out”. But can’t we live with a slower economic growth for a few years? In the meantime, we focus on infrastructure building and control the spiraling cost of living so that REAL income increases instead of GDP growth
And you said the government should be given the time to "beef up the system at the same speed as they are letting migrants in"
Let me quote the URA 2001 Concept Plan which our elite minister endorsed way back in 22 Dec 2000.
"Introduction
1.1 In the 1991 Concept Plan, URA planned for a residential population of 4 million. The 2001 Concept Plan assumes a long-term population of 5.5 million, which includes citizens, permanent residents, employment pass and work permit holders. According to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, this figure is an estimate for planning purposes, to evaluate the allocation of land in the next 40 to 50 years. A bigger population would demand more land for housing, industry, recreation, transportation, infrastructure and other needs.
The Dilemma
1.2 The projected land available when the population reaches 5.5 million is 76,000 ha, taking into account future reclaimed land. However, the demand projections by URA for each land use indicated that a total of 80,000 ha would be required, resulting in a shortfall of 4,000 ha"
INFRASTRUCTURE
• Sounds familiar? A 2001 plan is made to have a 5.5mil population as a "target" in 40-50 years! We did it in 10 years! And in 2001, they already know there will be a shortfall of 4,000ha in LAND!
• They are the ones "turning the tap" to control population inflow! Will they not know they are doing it too fast? a 5.5mil population in 40-50 years time will already have a shortfall of 4,000ha in land so they didn't plan for overcrowding when they achieved the 5.5mil "target" in 4 TIMES less time?
• Do you even know what 4,000ha means? That is 40,000,000 sq metres! Given a 5-room flat is 110 sq metres, that means 363,636 5-room flats shortfall in 2040! Since they achieved 5.3mil in 2012, how much more shortfall is there?
• The above shortfall is due to lack of 20/20 foresight? NO! It is due to putting through a plan with scarce consideration for the people!
• If we have 5.5mil by 2040, we will have a shortfall of 4,000 ha in land. Now they are saying we should have no problems housing 6.9mil in 2030! They expect us to believe that and sadly, you did!
And they listen? NO, even with 40% voting against them, they will go ahead with their new 2030 plan for 6.9mil. Why? Becoz they have more than 90% of the seats! That is due to GRC system that bring in MPs like Ms Tin who will never be voted in if she were to run on her own. But that is a different debate.
Responding to
wmjdgla said...
Please don't take whatever is said by the government as it is. Do some research on your own.
I shall put forth my arguments in 2 parts: EMPLOYMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE.
EMPLOYMENT
• I believe most Singaporeans are educated enuf to know that we need foreign workers to do those jobs that Singaporeans do not want for themselves, ie the WORK PERMIT holders.
• Employment Pass holders are the jobs that I believe is squeezing out the middle-class Singaporeans. These EP holders are required to have a degree or diploma with a minimum salary of $2,000 fixed monthly salary. Doesn’t that sounds like our fresh graduates? What about Singaporeans graduating from ITE? Can they find a job when foreign labour is cheaper? What about P1 EP (min $8K monthly salary), P2 EP (min $4.5K) and Q1 EP (min 3K)? Are you in any of these salary brackets?
• You can let immigrants in more easily than “chasing” them out. Once the tap is turned, it is quite difficult to reverse the process. I am all for integrating the foreign talent to our Singaporean culture. I am NOT saying “chase the FTs out”. But can’t we live with a slower economic growth for a few years? In the meantime, we focus on infrastructure building and control the spiraling cost of living so that REAL income increases instead of GDP growth
And you said the government should be given the time to "beef up the system at the same speed as they are letting migrants in"
Let me quote the URA 2001 Concept Plan which our elite minister endorsed way back in 22 Dec 2000.
"Introduction
1.1 In the 1991 Concept Plan, URA planned for a residential population of 4 million. The 2001 Concept Plan assumes a long-term population of 5.5 million, which includes citizens, permanent residents, employment pass and work permit holders. According to National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, this figure is an estimate for planning purposes, to evaluate the allocation of land in the next 40 to 50 years. A bigger population would demand more land for housing, industry, recreation, transportation, infrastructure and other needs.
The Dilemma
1.2 The projected land available when the population reaches 5.5 million is 76,000 ha, taking into account future reclaimed land. However, the demand projections by URA for each land use indicated that a total of 80,000 ha would be required, resulting in a shortfall of 4,000 ha"
INFRASTRUCTURE
• Sounds familiar? A 2001 plan is made to have a 5.5mil population as a "target" in 40-50 years! We did it in 10 years! And in 2001, they already know there will be a shortfall of 4,000ha in LAND!
• They are the ones "turning the tap" to control population inflow! Will they not know they are doing it too fast? a 5.5mil population in 40-50 years time will already have a shortfall of 4,000ha in land so they didn't plan for overcrowding when they achieved the 5.5mil "target" in 4 TIMES less time?
• Do you even know what 4,000ha means? That is 40,000,000 sq metres! Given a 5-room flat is 110 sq metres, that means 363,636 5-room flats shortfall in 2040! Since they achieved 5.3mil in 2012, how much more shortfall is there?
• The above shortfall is due to lack of 20/20 foresight? NO! It is due to putting through a plan with scarce consideration for the people!
• If we have 5.5mil by 2040, we will have a shortfall of 4,000 ha in land. Now they are saying we should have no problems housing 6.9mil in 2030! They expect us to believe that and sadly, you did!
And they listen? NO, even with 40% voting against them, they will go ahead with their new 2030 plan for 6.9mil. Why? Becoz they have more than 90% of the seats! That is due to GRC system that bring in MPs like Ms Tin who will never be voted in if she were to run on her own. But that is a different debate.
Hi James, well said. Thanks for substantiating with facts. I am a victim of the many policies government came out with all these years on cooling measures, home/vehicle ownership that greatly affects my personal life and quality living.
Hi SgBluechip ,James. I agreed what both of you are telling us .However I am puzzle ,What the gov insist of carrying out the plan for 6.9 M when it is clearly not visible to sustain?
Can you guys enlighten me ?
Post a Comment